Hansard, 1971-03-26

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will consider waiving the Chief Building Surveyor's requirement of a registered architect's building plan for an existing or new temporary building of more than 900 square feet; and if he will consider requesting the Chief Building Surveyor's Department to sell standardised building plans for a three-room house of more than 900 square feet to the people in the rural areas.

Mr Speaker, Sir, building by-laws provide that sketch building plans may be accepted for erection of temporary houses of a floor area not exceeding 750 square feet. Where this area is exceeded, this restriction has not been applied too rigidly. In many cases where the floor plan submitted for a dwelling is for accommodation of a single family unit, the Chief Building Surveyor allows the use of sketch building plans for the erection of buildings even in excess of 900 square feet, without requiring an architect's building plan, provided that the structure is a simple structure and that the span of the roof trusses does not exceed the usual permissible length of about 20 feet. With regard to the sale of standardised building plans for a three-room house of more than 900 square feet in area, the Chief Building Surveyor is presently looking into the matter, and it is hoped to make these plans available for sale to the public very soon.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he is aware that a temporary poultry shed which covers an area of more than 900 square feet requires a building plan to be drawn up by a registered architect before consideration for its approval can be made by the Chief Building Surveyor's Department; and if he will take steps to have this requirement waived and to allow the Primary Production Department Veterinary Extension Centre to handle such applications.

Mr Speaker, Sir, poultry sheds are not always small structures. Some of them are more than 25 feet wide, 100 feet long, and 15 feet high. The covered area of the shed is not the criterion used in determining whether architect's plans are required. The main consideration is the span of the roof truss and its design. If, in the opinion of the Building Surveyor, the service of an architect is required to ensure structural safety, he will advise the applicant to engage an architect. The Director of Primary Production has drawn up standardised plans for poultry sheds. Poultry farmers who wish to dispense with the service of an architect for erection of poultry sheds in excess of 900 square feet in area, should make use of the standardised plans prepared by the Director of Primary Production which conform with all the requirements. The Ministry of National Development is presently considering transferring the control of erection of temporary farm structures from the Chief Building Surveyor's Department to the Primary Production Department. Details are being worked out between the two departments.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if it is planned to provide car parking facilities along, and bridges across, the canal adjacent to the proposed Hawkers' Centre to be built near Block 8, Jalan Tenteram, as those facilities will help to bring in business from motorists going along Jalan Toa Payoh.

Sir, it is considered undesirable to provide car parking facilities along, and bridges across, the canal adjacent to the proposed Hawkers' Centre to be built near Block 8, Jalan Tenteram, to link up with Jalan Toa Payoh. Sir, Jalan Toa Payoh will in due course form part of the proposed Pan-Island Expressway, and our traffic experts are against allowing too many ingresses and egresses to and from the expressway.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if it is planned to build a recreational park on the land along the canal between St. Michael's Estate and Jalan Toa Payoh.

Sir, I regret to say that there are no plans to build a recreational park on the land along the canal between St. Michael's Estate and Jalan Toa Payoh. The reason is that most of this land is a reserve for drainage. In fact, part of the land is being used as an access to the canal in order that the dredging of silt and clearing of rubbish from the canal can be carried out. A larger part of the remaining land is, in fact, earmarked for future widening of the canal.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will ascertain from the Housing and Development Board what remedial measures will be taken to relieve the residents of the nuisance caused by caterpillars which infest the Madras Thorn trees in the Guillemard Road Estate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Madras Thorn trees are liable to be infested with caterpillars when new leaves begin to grow. As soon as any tree is discovered to be so infested, action is taken to destroy the caterpillars with a solution of insecticide. Some Madras Thorn trees in Guillemard Road Estate were recently infested with caterpillars and they were treated with insecticide.

(In Mandarin): Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House how many such trees are there and how many are infested with caterpillars?

(In Mandarin): Sir, there are 99 such trees and only 12 are infested with caterpillars.

(In Mandarin): Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House whether these infested trees will be cut down and new ones planted in their place?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the estate is redeveloped, I think the problem of cutting down those trees will then be solved.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will consider metalling the inner portion of Vaughan Road, Lorong Patong and Lorong Zaitun and, if so, when the work will commence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposal for metalling of Lorong Zaitun is with the Urban and Rural Services Committee for consideration. It is suggested that the other two proposals be likewise referred to the U.R.S.C. which will no doubt give them due consideration.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already submitted my proposals for the metalling of Vaughan Road and Lorong Patong to the U.R.S.C. Can the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House whether or not these proposals will be approved in the near future?

(In Mandarin): Sir, if the Member for Thomson has already submitted his proposals to the U.R.S.C., we will bring them up for discussion at the next meeting.

asked the Minister for Health (a) if he has plans to enlarge St. Michael's Market to accommodate the unlicensed hawkers who are presently hawking in the concourse outside the Market; and (b) if it is proposed to provide a staircase leading directly from the concourse to the upper storey of that Market, so as to bring better business to the stall-holders upstairs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are no plans to enlarge St. Michael's Market. All unlicensed hawkers plying in the concourse in the vicinity of the market were resited and given a place within the market on 18th November, 1970. Subsequently, through lack of firm enforcement, more unlicensed hawkers have gathered there. There are 42 vacant stalls and pitches in the market. It is not possible, therefore, to resite within the market all the unlicensed hawkers outside. The Housing and Development Board has, however, prepared plans for the construction of a new hawkers' centre at Jalan Tenteram. Those hawkers who cannot be resited in the existing market will be moved into this new market. There are two existing staircases within St. Michael's Market which already afford access to the upper storey. It is, therefore, not proposed to provide a staircase leading directly to the upper storey of the market.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister what will happen to the unlicensed hawkers in the meantime, before the completion of the proposed hawkers' centre?

Sir, it is proposed to license them, which means that they will have to pay licence fees. These fees are at the moment being paid by the hawkers or stallholders inside the market, and therefore the present unlicensed hawkers, when licensed, will not have an unfair advantage over those inside the market.

Sir, in view of the numerous complaints that I have received regarding the high rentals of the market stalls, will the Minister consider lowering them not only for the present stallholders but also for the unlicensed hawkers who will be given licences?

Mr Speaker, sir, as far as I am concerned. I have not heard of complaints of high rentals in the market. But I am hearing this for the first time in this Chamber from the Member for Whampoa. May I say that the rentals in Government markets are highly subsidised. They are very reasonable. As far as St. Michael's Market is concerned, I think the major complaint is the unfair competition which the unlicensed hawkers are giving to the stalls inside the market. I remember my visit to the market - you will be surprised, Sir, that I myself do visit markets - during the last "Keep Singapore Clean" campaign. The stallholders came out to see me and their main complaint was, "We, the stallholders inside the market, pay licence fees and it is unfair of you to allow these unlicensed hawkers in the concourse outside the market to get away without paying any fees at all. Therefore, there is this unfair competition." In fact, that was the major complaint they made to me, but they made no complaint about high rentals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister consider allowing the market stallholders to pay their rentals on a monthly basis, as they did some time ago? They have to make quarterly payments right now, and this constitutes quite a burden on them.

Sir, when we introduced these quarterly payments for market stallholders at the beginning of last year, there were complaints and grumblings about it. But these complaints have stopped now. It is quite human for people to grumble when there is some change. But may I say that if there are any genuine cases of hardship, we do consider each case on its merits or demerits.

Sir, is the Minister aware that this market is within a Housing and Development Board estate? It is not the policy of the Hawkers Department of the Housing Board to license unauthorised hawkers outside or within the concourse of the market. If it is, this will create a problem for me.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question is very relevant, The problem with this market is due to the division of jurisdiction. In fact, the market comes under the control of my Ministry, but the concourse outside is under the control of the Housing and Development Board. Anyway, since both of us are on the same side, the Ministry of Health and the Markets Department of the Housing Board will jointly decide on the policy. But if the Member has problems, perhaps he can convey them either to the Hawkers Department or the Housing and Development Board, as we do have liaison with them, and we will take joint action.

Sir, when all the unauthorised hawkers in the concourse outside St. Michael's Market have been licensed and resited in the new market at Jalan Tenteram, will the Minister allow more unlicensed hawkers to come along?

Mr Speaker. Sir, my common sense tells me no. I think I shall follow my common sense.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if that is the Minister's common sense, why does he allow the present unlicensed hawkers to trade outside St. Michael's Market, as a result of which there is unfair competition between them and the licensed hawkers? Is that common sense?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did explain in my answer that it is because of the lack of effective enforcement that the unlicensed hawkers have gathered in that area. May I say that common sense is wanting, but perhaps the hawker inspectors did have a heart and so they did not take effective action. That is why this problem has arisen.

Will the Minister explain whether the Hawkers Department will continue to have a heart when dealing with all the unlicensed hawkers at that particular market?

Common sense again tells me that they will continue to have a heart!

asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider introducing amending legislation to exempt a person, who earns $6,000 per annum or less from payment of income tax, in view of the increase in the cost of living during the last few years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the burden of income tax in Singapore is low because of the generous personal reliefs and the graduated rates of tax. At present about 120,000 out of 650,000 working persons are liable to income tax. Under the Income Tax Ordinance a taxpayer is allowed personal relief of $2,000 plus an earned income relief of 1/5th of his earned income up to a maximum of $1,000. A relief of $1,000 is given in respect of his wife, $750 in respect of his first child, $500 each for the second and third child, and $300 each for the fourth and fifth child. In addition, the taxpayer is allowed deductions on his life insurance premiums and compulsory contributions to the Central Provident Fund equivalent to that of the income up to a maximum of $4,000. The existing reliefs and personal deductions considerably reduce the burden of income tax. A married taxpayer, earning $6,000 per annum for example, with two children, will have to pay income tax of only $9, and a single person earning $6,000 per annum will be liable to pay income tax of $144. A married couple earning $6,000 per annum, but without children, will have to pay income tax of $84. There is, therefore, no reason why taxpayers in this income group should not make a small contribution towards paying for the security, educational, social and medical services of Singapore which are enjoyed by their families and by them. The International Monetary Fund Mission, which studied our tax structure during 1969, has stated that our personal reliefs and deductions are generous and could well be reduced.

asked the Minister for Finance if it is feasible now for the Government to revise the industrial policy by withdrawing the investment incentives to future foreign investors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is no. Members may be aware that only last year the Government introduced amendments to the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act, 1967, which curtailed considerably the incentives offered to industrial investors. The major changes provided in the amendment Bill were as follows: (1) A reduction in the period of tax relief for export enterprises from 15 years to eight years in the case of exports as well as pioneer enterprises, and from 15 years to five years in the case of non-pioneer enterprises. However, in exceptional circumstances, the 15-year period is still available for very large enterprises with a capital investment of (Singapore) $1 billion or more, or those with a capital investment of $150 million of which more than half is owned by permanent residents of the republic. (2) The five-year tax relief provided for pioneer industries is now confined only to large enterprises with fixed capital investments of not less than $1 million. (3) Expansion incentives are restricted only to those enterprises which incur additional capital investment in fixed assets of more than $10 million. (4) Depreciation allowances which were allowed to be carried forward to the post-pioneer period at accelerated rates which, in effect, extended the pioneer period beyond five years to six years or seven years are now no longer allowed to be carried forward. Thus this restricts the pioneer period to a maximum of five years. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has emphasised the need for selectivity also in his budget statement. The Government has been very selective in approving incentives. Since November 1970, when the new amendment Bill was brought into effect, only nine pioneer certificates have been approved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister of State consider lowering the qualification of $10 million required for expansion purposes to, let us say, $5 million or less, as this will encourage expansion, especially the smaller local industries? This is the qualification for pioneer status.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in considering the amendments to the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act last year, very careful consideration was given to incentives, and we decided upon $10 million because we thought this was a good round sum. Of course, should circumstances change, we would definitely consider either lowering it or increasing it.

If the Minister will recall the relevant sitting when this amendment was discussed, the then Minister for Finance indicated that any figure would do, and so he picked $10 million. At that time I thought that he was open to suggestions for an amendment, but I lost my chance at that stage.

Sir, I do not recall the Minister saying that. Perhaps in his lighter mood he could have made that statement. But I can assure the Member for Whampoa that $10 million was fixed after due consideration. But, of course, as I have just said, should circumstances change and if we can with advantage lower the sum, consideration will definitely be given to it.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day].

2.52 p.m. Head 72 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 201. Sir, I note that no less than $218,000 has already been spent on the underground car park at St. Andrew's Cathedral grounds. I shall be grateful if the Minister for Law and National Development can enlighten this House on what progress has been made on this project. I refer to page 7 of the Memorandum on the Development Estimates in which it is stated: 'Work on the car park costing about $1.90 million is expected to start in the 1971/72 financial year.' Sir, a sum of more than $200,000 has been spent. Can the Minister enlighten this House on how, why and where this sum has been spent? Also, when will the underground car park be completed and how many cars will it be able to hold?

Mr Speaker, Sir, originally a small car park was planned to be built in the grounds of St. Andrew's Cathedral. The proposal was, however, temporarily shelved in favour of a bigger scheme. The study of the need of a bigger parking scheme is, in fact, in progress and construction work will begin as soon as the scheme has been finalised and approved. We are a little concerned that the digging and piling in the compound of the cathedral might in any way affect the building. As the original scheme was not proceeded with, a sum of $218,000, being the difference between the provision of half a million dollars and the revoted sum, was in fact not spent on the underground car park, but was used for establishing other car parks in Singapore. In fact, only $3,500 has been spent on preliminary work relating to the underground car park scheme at St. Andrew's Cathedral grounds, such as the construction of a model of the proposed car park, test bores and the printing of plans. Beyond that, I am afraid nothing much has been done nor has much money been spent.

Sir, when will the car park be completed? Another question is, how many cars will this car park hold?

I cannot say with any assurance when the car park will be completed because the plan has not been completed. It will take at least a few years. Neither can I say exactly how many parking bays will be provided. This depends on the completed plans. I have spoken earlier of a small-scale car park and then a second plan was for a bigger-scale car park. But at the most we can provide space for about 500 to 600 cars without affecting the Cathedral building itself.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 202. Sir, in moving this amendment, I merely wish to know from the Minister where these parking places will be established.

Sir, up to date, the Car Parks Division has over 200 parking places with a total of 13,494 car parking lots. More than one-third of these lots are located in the central business district, whilst the remaining two-thirds are mostly in the city area with some extending to as far as Singapore Airport in the north and Jurong Fishing Port in the south-west. There are also parking places at very low parking fees for about 2,000 cars on the fringe of the city at the Kallang Park sports complex, Beach Road and Havelock Road. The division also provides parking for lorries at 30 parking places with 529 lots, and motorcycles and scooters at 42 parking places with 3,830 lots. It also manages 111 taxi stands with 756 bays.

Sir, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 204. Sir, can the Minister please explain why the construction of a garbage composting plant is being contemplated? I note that this project is still subject to the Development Planning Committee's sanction.

Sir, the garbage composting plant is used to ferment garbage and produce compost from the garbage. Compost is an organic soil conditioner like sludge, manure and prawn dust. But it is a better grade of soil conditioner than sludge or manure. In 1962, it was proposed to establish a garbage composting plant by private enterprise with the participation of the Economic Development Board. It was then considered to be an economic proposition, as it was thought that the compost produced could be sold at profitable prices to neighbouring countries, in particular Malaysia. However, this proposal was not implemented because of the separation in 1965, following which the Malaysian market for compost was no longer open to us. Sir, times have changed again and, with the accelerated programme of planting trees, shrubs and other greenery in Singapore, the local demand for soil conditioners has increased substantially. It was therefore decided to reconsider the establishment of this plant in view of the changed circumstances. Sir, a comparative cost study has been undertaken by a committee of Government officials representing the various departments and Ministries. The committee has advised that it is comparatively cheaper to establish a garbage compost plant to dispose of garbage and refuse than to use the present conventional method of dumping garbage in the swamp at Tampines. The annual cost of operating the plant is estimated to be about $650,000, which would represent an annual saving of about $110,000.

Sir, in view of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 301. Sir, with your permission, may I, in my remarks, range over the next amendment* on subhead 302 which stands in my name? * The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 302.

Yes.

Sir, I had already asked several questions in the House last night before Parliament rose and the Minister must have missed my questions when he answered another Member's questions. Sir, a lot of money has been spent by Government on the reclamation of land. I wish to know how much has been spent on reclamation schemes to date, and what is the acreage of the reclaimed land. I am asking these questions because I have had occasion to travel along Bedok Road where I saw vast stretches of reclaimed land. However, I noticed that there are only several blocks of buildings there. In this connection, I wonder whether the Ministry of Law and National Development, in particular the National Development Division, has any plans to develop the reclaimed land and, if so, what they are. Also will some of the sites be offered to the private sector, like the "Golden Mile", for private development? I shall be grateful if the Minister can enlighten this House on my queries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the areas reclaimed by the Government on the east coast are, of course, mainly meant for purposes which would be of economic advantage to the state. The reclamation, as the Member for Punggol knows, is being undertaken in four phases, and the reclaimed land will be utilised for the development, firstly, of a major highway to link the heavily congested eastern part of the republic with the city centre. Apart from this, the reclaimed land will also be utilised for development of open spaces and parks to provide the much-needed recreational amenities in our republic, tourist projects such as the Aquarama, bathing beaches, hotels, institutional buildings, including schools, junior colleges, recuperation centres and even homes for the aged, commercial centres and residential homes. The first two phases of the scheme which have been completed have yielded about 1,135 acres of reclaimed land. The proposal is to plan for some development on the sites around the middle of next year subject to development of the infrastructure for roads, sewerage, water and electricity. Although the preliminary plans for the development have been completed, the Government is now looking into the possibility of engaging a well-known consultant to review the plans for this major development. The Member for Punggol can rest assured that it is our intention to offer some of the sites to the private sector on similar lines to those offered under the three sales of urban renewal sites. The reserve price will have to take into account the cost of reclamation, including the provision of the infrastructure. May I say that the development of the military camp at Bedok was made during 1967 when expediency dictated the urgent need to provide a camp for use by our military personnel. As timing was crucial, it was the only place that offered the required land area for immediate development. The action taken was governed by the situation prevailing during that period, and the Ministry of National Development could not take on the Ministry of Defence.

Sir, the Minister has not answered my query on the cost involved in reclaiming the thousands of acres of land.

It is roughly $1 to $1.50 per square foot.

Sir, assuming that the cost of reclaiming land is between $1 and $2 per square foot and taking into account the provision for the infrastructure, will the Ministry consider not making exorbitant profits, as has been alleged in this House, when the sites are offered for sale to the private sector?

Sir, the cost price may be $1 or $2. But we cannot just give it for $1 or $2, because the land must be sold on tender. In any public sale, there must be tenders, and the highest tenderer will normally get the land. If the Member for Punggol tenders for $1 and the Member for Bras Basah offers $10, obviously the latter gets the land.

Sir, I must thank the Minister for his patience and his reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 404. In moving this amendment, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister whether the amount provided for is for the construction of a police station in Toa Payoh. If it is so, when will construction commence?

Sir, the provision of a little more than $1½ million under this particular item is, firstly, for the renovation and alteration to the Hill Street Police Station at an estimated cost of $578,000. Secondly, the construction of a new Police Divisional Headquarters at Toa Payoh at a cost of about $970,250, and the construction of a new Quartermaster's Store at Hemmant Road at a total cost of $957,000. Whilst the renovation of the Hill Street Police Station is expected to be completed within the next fiscal year, the other two projects, which involve new construction, may have to be completed over a longer period. Hence, for the next financial year, only $428,000 and $537,000 have been provided for the new Police Divisional Headquarters at Toa Payoh and the new Quartermaster's Store.

Sir, I wish to thank the Minister for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $100*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Sim Boon Woo.) Under this Head 72, I would like to talk about the problems of urban renewal. In the urban renewal programme, we have achieved a lot. The Government has attracted many local as well as foreign investors to participate in our urban renewal projects because it has offered incentives to the developers. However, the rapid development of urban renewal has affected many people. Those who have been badly affected are small businessmen and they do not have the capital to participate in this big-scale development. Therefore, I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law and National Development whether the Government will take measures to help those who are affected by the urban renewal projects. For example, can he tell us whether he will allot a piece of land to these small merchants to do their business, and let them participate in these development projects so that they will be given the opportunity to continue their business as usual? In this way, our own citizens can participate in our national development. Also because of the rapid development of our urban renewal, more and more people have to be evacuated. But the Housing and Development Board is not able to cater for the needs of those who are affected because it cannot build enough shophouses. Therefore, the demand always exceeds the supply. As far as I know, some of those who were evacuated and whose shophouses were demolished two or three years ago, sometimes even longer, have not been allotted suitable shophouses up to now. How can they continue with their business to earn a living. It is impossible for them to continue living! This is indeed a very serious problem. In our new Five-Year Plan, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider carefully the question of providing enough shophouses to those affected by urban renewal; for example, grocery and coffee shops, restaurants and so on. If we can increase the building of shophouses in our new Five-year Plan, it will help those who have been affected by the urban renewal programme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has considered the proposition to offer sites to those shopkeepers affected by urban renewal who could join forces and collectively develop the sites. In fact, Government has already offered and concluded one such transaction with a group of shopkeepers affected in Precinct South III in the area bounded by Upper Hokien Street, South Bridge Road, Upper Cross Street and New Bridge Road. The shopkeepers have formed themselves into a company jointly to redevelop the site offered by the Government. Plans have already been submitted by this group for the site offered by the Government. In addition to this particular case, which is intended as a pilot project to study the possibility of such a mode of relocation, Government is also working out another pilot relocation programme under similar arrangements for another group of shopkeepers affected by resettlement around the area known as Precinct North III bounded by Victoria Street, Arab Street, North Bridge Road and Rochore Road. Another point is that shopkeepers affected by urban renewal are allocated alternative shop premises within the Housing and Development Board estates. Some of these are located within the central area and others are outside the central area. Unfortunately, due to difficulties of choice and timing, not all cases affected are provided with alternative premises in the preferred areas. In the case of coffee shops, because of planning and design restrictions, the supply of such shops is limited. However, coffee shops affected by priority clearance are allocated shop premises. With the lessons learnt in the pilot urban renewal project, the shortcomings experienced, especially relating to clearance, will be looked into and better solutions found. In future, it is hoped to build more of the required shops to assist in relocation and to minimise the hardship created by urban renewal, which everyone has accepted as being essential for the proper social and economic development of Singapore.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has given me a very satisfactory reply. I hope he will be able to carry out what he has promised; for example, to build more shophouses for those shopkeepers who were evacuated. He says that the Government has planned to let those who were affected work in collaboration with one another in the redevelopment, but has the Government laid down any minimum amount of money as capital for this redevelopment?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not restrict the amount of capital. We will help them according to their capability.

(In Mandarin): Sir, since the Parliamentary Secretary has given me a satisfactory reply, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $39,822,800 for Head 72 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 73 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 73 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 104*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ho Kah Leong.) In moving this amendment, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, apart from the provision asked for in respect of the Central Abattoir in Jurong, there is, however, no provision for rural abattoirs. Sir, if I may refresh the memory of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law and National Development by referring him to Hansard, Vol. 29, No. 16, dated 26th March, 1970, col. 1211, in which his Minister said: 'Government's thinking on the need for rural abattoirs has not changed.' 3.30 p.m. Further down in the reply, he said: 'That does not mean to say that we have abandoned the idea of building abattoirs in the rural areas.' Sir, it is precisely for this reason that I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to inform the House of the reasons for the deletion of the provision in the Development Estimates for the ensuing year for the setting up of rural abattoirs. Sir, some of my colleagues have vigorously argued for the setting up of rural abattoirs. I believe the Member for Jalan Kayu did make some remarks in this respect, and so did some other Members. Sir, we shall be grateful if the Minister can explain why the idea of setting up abattoirs in the rural areas has been shelved. Coming back to the Central Abattoir in Jurong, I remember the Minister on that same occasion said that his Ministry was looking into the question of handing over the running of the Central Abattoir to a private organisation. In this connection, may I refer again to the Hansard of the same date and to the same column in which the Minister said, and I quote: 'But Government's thinking on who should run these abattoirs has changed. In view of our experience at the Jurong Abattoir, we are thinking of letting private enterprise run even the Jurong Abattoir-in other words, a statutory board or a public company-and we are inviting the private sector to come in. We do not want just the civil servants to run the abattoir if it is converted into a public company.' Sir, I believe some progress has been made, and I would like to know the actual progress made.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that the Government has already spent $5 million on the Central Abattoir at Jurong. From what I know, this abattoir has been designed by experts, and it is comparable to that of other countries. But we must remember that the practice in other countries may not be applicable to Singapore. For example, foreigners do not eat the skin of the pig or its entrails, but the majority of the people of Singapore do eat them. Sir, since its inception three years ago a number of incidents have occurred at the Jurong Abattoir. In order to avoid trouble and to ease the difficulties, it is learnt that the Primary Production Department has handed over the Central Abattoir to a private enterprise. If this is so, I cannot understand why it is necessary to provide a sum of $247,170 in the Development Estimates for 1971-72. I would also ask whether the employees of the abattoir will remain as the staff of the Primary Production Department and whether the private company will keep a separate account which is independent of the department. According to the newspapers, the slaughtering of pigs will be carried out in the abattoir in the daytime. Many people object to this because they say that if the pigs are slaughtered in the daytime, the meat will not be fresh. Can the Minister say if there is such a plan to slaughter the pigs in the daytime?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Jurong Abattoir Co. (Private) Ltd, was officially incorporated on 11th January, 1971, with an authorised capital of $5 million. A manager was appointed to take over control of the Jurong Abattoir from 8th February this year. The existing staff have either been offered company terms or secondment terms. The staff dealing with quality control have, however, been retained in the Primary Production Department, as quality control functions are best retained by Government. As regards the establishment of rural abattoirs, their economic and other aspects, including suitable alternative schemes, are presently under active consideration by the management of the company. A decision on this matter will be taken after the feasibility study is completed. Sir, to ensure that quality and hygiene are maintained at internationally accepted standards, inspection of the animals slaughtered continues to be carried out by qualified veterinarians and specially trained animal health inspectors of the Primary Production Department. That is why the vote under this subhead is still retained.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary does not seem to have answered two questions. I asked whether the accounts of the Jurong Abattoir are on an independent basis or whether they are maintained by the Primary Production Department. The other question is whether or not it is true that the slaughtering of pigs will be carried out in the day-time.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in regard to the Central Abattoir, I have mentioned that it is under the control of a private company. Needless to say, the Central Abattoir is a private limited company. But in respect of quality control, that function still rests with the Primary Production Department. As regards the slaughtering of pigs in the day-time, the main reason for this is to reduce the expenditure of the Central Abattoir and to economise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to hear that there is a feasibility study on whether or not abattoirs in the rural areas could be set up by this private organisation. But I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary has forgotten that in 1968 there was a provision of a token vote of $10 for three rural abattoirs to be set up. In 1969 there was no vote, but the matter was brought up again in 1970. I sincerely hope that there will be no further "feasibility study" into this matter. Three years have gone by and I have brought up the question of abattoirs in the rural areas purely from another angle, namely, these rural abattoirs will relieve the pork retailers of having to travel all the way up to Jurong, since the abattoir at French Road has closed down. Not only will the retailers in Punggol be inconvenienced but also those from as far as Jalan Kayu, Tampines, and, for that matter, Changi. Sir, I do hope that the Primary Production Department, which is in control of the private organisation as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, will seriously look into this matter.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of what the Member for Punggol has said. The pork sellers in the rural areas are faced with a big problem. Because they have to travel a long distance to buy the meat, they have to get up in the early hours of the morning in order to go all the way to Jurong. The Central Abattoir is very busy, and the pork sellers have to wait a long time before they can get a share of the meat. If we can establish a number of small rural abattoirs, it will not be necessary for these pork sellers to travel such a long distance. I hope the Minister will seriously consider this question. The Member for Punggol has also said that after three years we find that this scheme does not work, and even the department itself knows that it does not work. The other question is not that of slaughtering of pigs but the slaughtering of cows. I know that some hawkers who sell beef noodles are not able to obtain a fresh supply of the entrails. Apparently it takes ten hours for the frozen entrails of the cow to be transported from Jurong to the city, and by that time these entrails are not fresh any more. Therefore, they cannot be sold to the public. I hope the Minister will carry out the necessary investigation.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to raise another question regarding the Central Abattoir. Is it supposed to be a profit-making enterprise, or is it to be an organisation performing a service? The Parliamentary Secretary has also said that the reason for slaughtering pigs in the day-time is to reduce expenditure and to economise. Since this has been objected to by the Slaughters' Association, I hope the Minister will give consideration to their representation.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Jurong has asked whether the Central Abattoir is a profit-earning enterprise or whether it is an organisation to provide a service. I can assure him that it is a profit-making organisation, and not a non-profit organisation. 3.45 p.m. The Member for Sembawang has suggested establishing small rural abattoirs. I can convey his suggestion to the private company which is in control of the Central Abattoir now. I am not so sure that it takes 10 hours for the frozen entrails to be sent from Jurong to the city. If the Member can provide further information, I will give him a detailed answer.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will investigate first whether such a situation exists. Can he do this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in replying to the Member for Sembawang, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would bring up to the new private company the suggestion of having abattoirs in the rural areas. What I said was that three years have already passed. What is being done in this connection? This is my question. I know that whenever suggestions are put forward, the reply is, "We will consider them and bring them up." But what is the net result? If there is no result, then something else must be done.

It is under investigation.

It is not under investigation. If the Minister for Social Affairs says it is still under investigation, I wonder when he will complete his investigation. Sir, this is the crux of the problem. Even the statement that the matter is under "active consideration" means nothing to me. What I want is positive construction of the rural abattoirs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that the Member for Punggol raised this question three years ago and I promised him consideration means that we did give it consideration. But I am not an expert on abattoirs and my experts did not think it advisable to set them up at once. Meanwhile, things went on at the Central Abattoir in Jurong. Now that a company has been formed, it would be unfair to this company if we immediately open up three more rural abattoirs. The interests of the company must now be considered. The Member's suggestion has been considered but not accepted. It does not mean that when a suggestion is made here, we must consider it and we must accept it. The experts' views may not tally with the Member's views. But it does not mean that we have been sleeping on the Member's suggestion. I can assure him of that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now when I read out the relevant portion of the Minister's reply last year, he was not here to listen to it. I do not wish to reiterate, but since he has agreed with me that we should give this new company time to settle down and that he will try to accommodate my suggestion. I am happy with that, and therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 73 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 202. Sir, before I make some remarks on this subhead, may I, with your permission, range over subhead 203*, which also stands in my name? * The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ho Kah Leong, reads as follows: (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head 73 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 203.

Yes.

I just have a simple and straightforward question to ask. With regard to the number of intensive farming improvement schemes that have been carried out, where have they been carried out, what positive results have been achieved, and also, in similar respects, what about the factory farming pilot scheme? I have always been in sympathy with the farmers, having come from a rural area in which there is plenty of farming around. The Primary Production Department has come up with a very substantial figure of farming produce in its annual report. I wonder whether the Minister for Law and National Development is aware of the inhibitions on the part of landowners in connection with lands which are zoned as agricultural areas. In other words, lands which are zoned as agricultural areas mean that only agricultural development can take place. Here again the Minister may come up with the statement, "We may have just a few landowners who may prevent the tenant farmers from further utilising their land or extending the area of farming." Sir, I would urge the Minister to look into this matter, because land availability is scarce and, with other forms of development going on, more and more land will be taken up. Therefore, there is need to continue to preserve certain zoned areas for agricultural purposes. I understand we import quite a lot of vegetables but not eggs or poultry. We have now a surplus of eggs and poultry. In fact, we even export broiler chicks and eggs overseas. But unfortunately now, Sir - you may or may not be aware of it - the price of eggs has taken a dip. Some Members may not agree that eggs are not that cheap. I say that the price of eggs has come down to about 6 1/2 to 6 3/4 cents each, and I wonder whether or not Government will look into the matter. In discussions some years back with the Director of Primary Production, he indicated that Government was contemplating building an egg factory in which the surplus eggs would be bought over by this factory and turned into egg powder. Sir, what feasibility studies have been made to establish such an egg factory?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment under subhead 203. Since the Member for Punggol has ranged over this subhead, may I also speak on it?

Yes.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in full sympathy with what the Member for Punggol has expressed. Land is a scarce factor of production in our country. Many farmers have been affected by resettlement and the new area of land allotted to them is very small. Therefore, we must try our best to introduce intensive farming methods or the factory farming pilot scheme to remedy the deficiency of land and the small size of the farms. I believe that the intensive farm improvement schemes or the factory farming pilot scheme which have been under active experiment by the Primary Production Department have achieved a certain measure of success. Can the Minister inform the House what progress and achievements have been made by these two schemes? Also, can these two schemes be applied to the whole farming community in Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the intensive farm improvement scheme was initiated in 1968 with the objective of introducing modern scientific methods of farming to the farmers so that they could intensify their activities and increase their productivity. Under the scheme, research was initiated to improve the use of horticultural crops through the selection of a good parent plant, through better manurial practices and the control of pests and diseases. These studies are being carried out at the Sembawang Field Experimental Station as well as a demonstration farm at Lim Chu Kang. The results obtained from all these studies have been and will continue to be passed on to our farmers through the Primary Production Extension Service or through training courses organised by the department. As for land for agriculture, the Primary Production Department is working closely with the planning authority on the future needs of land for agriculture. The Planning Department is at present completing a study into the overall planning of land use for Singapore, including the planning of land used for agricultural purposes. However, it must be realised that, with the limited land available in Singapore and with the great demand for land for other purposes, the use of land for agricultural purposes, though not neglected, has to be considered in the context of Singapore's overall economic development. The Government recognises the need to optimise the use of agricultural land, including private land used for agriculture. However, it has at present no power to compel owners of private land to optimise the use of their land for agricultural purposes. If the owners of private land in areas zoned for agriculture wish to make fuller use of their land, they can always seek the advice of the Primary Production Department on the type of agriculture which can be suitably undertaken on their land. With regard to the factory farming scheme which has been raised by both Members, the proposal has only been approved in principle and its implementation is expected to be initiated towards the end of this year. Whether it is practical to introduce multi-storey flatted farms on a large scale to farmers in Singapore will depend very much on the results yielded by a pilot scheme to be introduced. Whether or not the farmers will adopt factory farming methods and how extensively factory farming can be carried out in Singapore will depend on the results yielded by this pilot project.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have raised the question of the surplus of eggs, their low price, and what good use we will make from this surplus of eggs; for example, the building of an egg-powder factory in Singapore. I shall be grateful if the Minister can enlighten this House on this matter. 4.00 p.m.

I am sorry I did not answer that question, Sir. We tried to interest several parties to start this egg-powder factory, but no one was interested. As for the price of eggs, I think I have on several occasions commented in this House that when the price goes down, I have to explain what I am doing about it. When the price goes up, I have to explain what I am doing to stamp it down. But this is the result of supply and demand and there are fluctuations. Sometimes within one year, the price goes up and comes down. It does not remain stable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the more important question here is whether the farmers are able to make a profit at the present level of the price of eggs. In other words, has productivity increased commensurately with the decrease in price?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not the question. The price of eggs as it stands is insufficient for the farmers to make a marginal profit. I come from a rural area and I know what the position is. The point is that there is a surplus of eggs on the market resulting in a dip in the price. The Minister has just now mentioned that it is a question of supply and demand. But I am afraid the supply exceeds the demand. There was a plan to set up a factory to turn eggs into egg powder for sale overseas. The Minister has mentioned that his Ministry tried to interest several parties to start this factory but no one was interested. This takes my mind back to the time when one of our Ministers - I cannot remember who said that Government would take the plunge. If investors dare not go into a venture because they think there is no likelihood of making money, why should the Government not take a closer look into the question of setting up an egg-powder factory?

And get more votes in Punggol!

Not necessarily so!

Sir, I think the Member for Whampoa made a reasonable point. It is a question of whether the farmers are suffering.

Yes, they are.

This is the feeling of the Member for Punggol. That is his information. But that is not my information. The price of eggs has not gone down that low. If the price of eggs is one or two cents, then I say something would have to be done about it. I think I must repeat myself here again. When the price goes up, Members ask me to bring it down. When the price goes down, other Members ask me to bring it up. As for the egg factory, no one is interested and neither is Government, anyway not at the moment.

Sir, I am indeed grateful to the Minister for his patience and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 73 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 206. Sir, I remember that last year the subhead was "Farm Licensing, Agricultural Survey and Agricultural Statistics Unit." Why is it that only the Agricultural Statistics Unit is left for 1971-72? Does it mean that the farm licensing and the agricultural survey have already been completed? I remember that farm licensing is undertaken every year. I would like to ask the Minister the following questions: (1) Can he inform this House how many farms have been registered since the farm licensing scheme came into operation? (2) As regards farmers who have been licensed, will they be given priority in the allotment of land when they are evicted from their present farms? (3) The Minister in answer to my question last year said that the data collected under farm licensing would be used to ascertain the existing state of agriculture in Singapore. This is in Hansard, Vol. 29, No. 16, dated 26th March, 1970, col. 1214. Now that all the data have been collected, can the Minister inform this House of the condition of the agricultural sector and whether there are any plans for further development? (4) Is the Ministry of National Development - considering any measures to provide the farmers with market research services of not only the local market but also of foreign markets? This will provide the farmers with useful guidance in concentrating on agricultural produce for export.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, farm licensing is at present conducted by the Agricultural Statistics Unit and that is the reason why there is no vote for farm licensing in 1971-72. Up to date, the number of farmers licensed is about 26,000. The Member for Jurong also wants to know whether licensed farmers will be allotted land if they are evicted from their farms. This will depend on whether the farmer concerned is a full-time or a part-time farmer. In other words, it depends on whether all the members of the household depend on farming for their livelihood. If some of the members of the household work as taxi drivers or in the factories. I believe the Government will not allot land to them. On the Members' third question whether Government has any plans for agricultural development, I can tell the House that at the moment the planning section of the Ministry of National Development is studying this question and is trying to delineate certain areas for agricultural development. So the whole scheme is now under consideration. The Member also wants to know whether the Primary Production Department has any plans to provide farmers with market research services. We have already carried out farm registration work and we have sufficient data to know the quantity of our agricultural produce and their varieties. On the question of marketing this agricultural produce, we maintain close liaison with the Ministry of Finance in order to ensure that this agricultural produce can be exported abroad.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary in his answer says that farm registration is being conducted and he also knows the number of registered farms. But he does not know how many farms are in existence in Singapore. He says that there are about 26,000 registered farms. What I want to know is how many farms there are in Singapore and the definite number of those registered. The Parliamentary Secretary has also said that if some members of a farming household are taxi drivers or work in the factories, then the farmer will not be given land in case of eviction. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how the farmer got a farm licence in the first instance. If he has a farm licence, that means he is a farmer.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I would also like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this question. Last year when we were debating the same topic, the Minister said that they were investigating the conditions of our farming community. I do not know whether this investigation or survey has been completed. Because of this lapse of time, it has led to certain members of farming households having to work as taxi drivers, etc.

(In Mandarin): Sir, on the question of the agricultural survey, in our estimates for 1970-71 we certainly had a vote on this item. I do not know why the Ministry of Finance has not allotted another sum for the coming financial year. Therefore, the Member should ask the Minister for Finance about this. The agricultural survey was conducted for the purpose of providing us with more data to enable us to render better services and facilities for our farmers. If the Member for Jurong wants more details and the exact number of farms registered, etc., I can ask the Primary Production Department to send him a report. I can also let the other Members from the rural areas have a similar report. 4.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Sir, on the question of the agricultural survey, I am afraid that all the Government departments are shifting the blame to one another. If the Primary Production Department and the Agricultural Survey Unit are so important to the Ministry of National Development, why is it that the sum allotted cannot be used for this work? Does it not go to show that the Government is putting emphasis on industry and neglecting agriculture?

(In Mandarin): Sir, on the question of the agricultural survey, we will raise the matter again with the Ministry of Finance. If the Member for Jurong will support us, we will be very happy.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I feel that not only I myself will support it, but all Members of Parliament in the rural constituencies, including the M.P.s for Tampines and Choa Chu Kang, will also be glad to give their support. Almost all M.P.s agree to the allocation of this sum for the agricultural survey. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will raise this matter again with the Ministry of Finance so that an agricultural survey can be carried out earlier. If he can give us the assurance, then I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Sir, I can give the Member for Jurong that assurance. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 73 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 301. In this House a few days ago, we were talking about matters relating to deep-sea fishing. We know that there is a certain dislocation among Government departments. For instance, the Ministry of Finance has divested the deep-sea fishing industry of its pioneer status. Even the Minister for Law and National Development does not know why! If deep-sea fishing does not get the full support of the Government, and if it does not have any major capital investment, for example, fishing boats and other facilities, can the graduates of the Fishing Training Centre have any career outlet'? If they cannot get jobs, I believe no youths will be interested in joining the Fishing Training Centre. I would like to know if the facilities for the Training Centre are wasted. Since the setting up of the Training Centre, how many graduates have been employed? Are the jobs related to the course in which they have been trained?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as for deep-sea fishing and pioneer status, my views coincide with those of the Member for Jurong. I am not shifting the buck here, but the predecessor [Dr Goh Keng Swee] of the present Minister for Finance was responsible for the removal of pioneer status in respect of deep-sea fishing. Since the Member raised this question of pioneer status in the House earlier in the week, I have spoken to the Minister for Finance and the Member will be happy to know that the Minister has informed me that the matter is not closed. I will be taking up the cudgels on behalf of deep-sea fishing again. Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

As for the Fishing Training Centre at Changi, which was established with the assistance of the United Nations Development Programme, it runs two courses the deck course and the engine course. The deck course is aimed at producing navigators and fishing technicians, and the engine course is to train fishing vessel engineers. Out of the first batch of 24 trainees taken in August last year, 11 were for the deck course and 13 for the engine course. The success or failure of the centre can best be judged from the performance of the trainees, but as the first batch has not yet passed out, it is too early to comment. During late 1969 and early 1970, prior to the running of these one-year courses, there were four short intensive two to three months' courses for fishermen. Out of a total of 75 fishermen who attended these courses, 51 of them completed and passed the courses. Most of those who completed the courses were offered jobs by commercial fishing companies on the recommendation of the Primary Production Department, but unfortunately some of them did not remain long in their new job. For any who have been trained and say that they cannot find a job, the Primary Production Department will be pleased to secure places for them on off-shore and deep-sea fishing vessels operating from Jurong. Most of these vessels are short of local crew members.

Mr Speaker. Sir, if I may add another point. At Kankar, in Punggol, there is a small fishing port. There is an acute shortage of seamen. I welcome any Member who can recommend seamen to me.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanation given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 73 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 302*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ho Kah Leong.) In moving this amendment, I wish to bring up two points. The first point refers to the Jurong Fishing Port and Fish Market and the second to the fish market at Kankar, which is in the Punggol constituency.

We know that.

Thank you very much, Sir. I would like to know from the Minister for Law and National Development how much fish by way of tonnage and value the Jurong Fishing Port and Fish Market handles each year. As far as Kankar is concerned, I believe I have given the figure of no less than $7.2 million worth of fish being handled at the little market in Ponggol. Therefore it is not "fishy business", as earlier indicated. I mean it is really fishing business pertaining to fish and not "fishy business" in the sense that you may think of. Anyway, I attach much importance to deep-sea fishing and offshore fishing. Invariably, the facilities at the Jurong Fishing Port and Fish Market are inadequate and I welcome the provision of $200,000 in this respect. If the Minister can enlighten this House on how this provision will be utilised, I shall be most grateful. With respect to the fish market and fishing port at Kankar, I am glad to say that the wisdom of the Government has prevailed, because, between 1964 and 1966, the Ministry of National Development was quite adamant in removing the little fishing fleet from Kankar to Jurong. However, common sense prevailed and today I can safely say that the fishing port at Kankar has developed very fast, in fact too fast. From a fleet of less than 60 fishing vessels, ranging from five tons to 15 tons, using this port during those years, it has now been increased to slightly more than a hundred. I am told that several more are being built. They are much bigger in size, in length and in tonnage. The fishing port at Kankar is fast becoming quite a busy place and the facilities there will be inadequate in the next few years. With this in mind, I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry has any plans to develop the Kankar fish market. I would also like to know what is happening to the latest petition asking for a jetty that was sent to the Director of the Primary Production Department.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that the Jurong Central Fish Market was set up two years ago with the co-operation of the merchants concerned. At that time, very simple timber offices were built, as the Primary Production Department wanted to speed up matters. The Department promised the merchants concerned that after two years the office would be reconstructed. Since the merchants co-operated with the Government, they did not quarrel with the Department about the facilities of the office. Two years have now elapsed, but there is still no sign of the building of new and spacious offices for the fish merchants in the Jurong Central Fish Market. Can the Minister say whether there is any plan in hand to build a larger office, or any plan to improve the situation? There are many large holes in the ground of the fish market. Some of them have been repaired, but other smaller holes have appeared since then. All the places in the Jurong Central Fish Market need to be washed in order to keep it in a hygienic condition. We all know that a cemented ground can be washed easily and can withstand the splashing of water. So when any development is made to this fish market, I hope the surrounding area will be cemented so that it will facilitate washing. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the first phase of the Jurong Fishing Port, the Government provided basic infrastructures such as the 750-foot walk, fish landing equipment, auction market and distribution facilities. Several sites within the fishing port complex have also been allocated to commercial companies for the establishment of cold storage and quick-freezing fishmeal production and ice-manufacturing facilities. All fish agents from Ellenborough and Clyde Terrace Markets in the city have shifted their operations to Jurong. Similarly, all lorries transporting fish from West Malaysia now unload fish at Jurong instead of at various places in Singapore. In view of these increased activities, a provision of $200,000 for the Jurong Fishing Port for next year is made for the extension of the existing wharf, improvement and expansion of the fish auction market, provision of additional lighting for the wharf, purchase of pumps to make use of sea water for cleaning purposes, and the provision of market equipment. Out of a total of about 67,000 tons of fish landed last year in Singapore, the Jurong Fishing Port handled about 49,000 tons, valued at approximately $39 million. Details of imports and exports of fish are as follows: Imports mostly from Tons Malaysia 40,655 Thailand 3,700 Taiwan 2,669 China 1,200 Korea 432 Other countries 617 ------ Total imports 49,273 ====== As for exports, we have been exporting to Italy, Japan, the United States, Sarawak, Hong Kong, and a few other places; the largest exports being to Italy, Japan and U.S.A. at a little over 1,000 tons each. May I now deal with some of the points raised by the Member for Jurong. The Primary Production Department erected three blocks of temporary timber offices for the use of fish merchants when the auction market was started. The department did not at any time undertake to erect permanent buildings for them. In fact, the department is of the view that they should erect their own facilities. The commercial companies engaged in the catching and auctioning of fish have constructed their own offices as well as fish processing installations. However, the department is prepared to recommend to the Jurong Town Corporation, which owns the land at the fishing port, to lease some land to any fish merchants who may wish to construct their own permanent offices or even to the Fish Merchants General Association for them to construct offices for their members. I believe the Member also made mention of the roads in the Jurong Fishing Port. The roads have been badly damaged but they were recently tarred, work having been completed in February this year. It appears that, because of the increase in the large number of heavy vehicles going in and out of the fishing port, the roads are subject to heavy wear and tear, and maintenance is not easy and will have to be more frequent if the roads are to be in serviceable condition. As for smells, the fishmeal factory belonging to a private company was responsible to a private company was responsible for some unpleasant odour at the fishing port. Apparently there were two major sources of smell: (1) from the steam released into the atmosphere; and (2) from the liquid waste which is discharged into a roadside drain. The Ministry of Health has inspected the factory -

I myself inspected the factory!

I beg the Minister's pardon. The Minister for Health inspected the factory and on his - I do not know whether to say recommendation, advice or threat the company has condensed the steam instead of releasing it into the atmosphere, and has also taken steps to discharge the liquid waste into the sewer system instead of into the open drain. The position now is satisfactory. Before I forget, I must now deal with the points raised by the Member for Punggol. He has raised so many points that I must be forgiven if I forget some of them. As to what I am doing at Kankar, for the moment I am doing nothing. We will be considering the petition for a jetty. If the funds do not come through to the Primary Production Department, then an application could be considered by the Urban and Rural Services Committee. But it would be difficult, as I realise, in a place like Kankar to land fish without a good jetty.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply, that whilst no other plans are being envisaged in Kankar, at least the jetty is being considered. However, I must stress that since the Primary Production Department has no plans to develop the Kankar Fish Market, the market itself is in the process of developing more or less. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (7) *, Mr Teong Eng Siong. Are you going to repeat what the other Members have said, or add to what they have said?

(In Mandarin): Sir, I have something new to say. Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 73 be reduced by $100*. In fact, there should be a larger reduction in the vote because the efficiency of the department is not so good. There are about 22 items of expenditure and the total vote is about $2 million, which is quite a considerable sum of money. We know that the Primary Production Department is responsible for the development of our agriculture and fisheries. The important question is whether it has any plans to develop agriculture or fisheries. On fisheries, we all know that the Member for Jurong has said in this House some time ago that about two-thirds of the fish consumed is imported from abroad, For this we have to spend a big sum of money, amounting to $17 million per year. I would like to ask the Minister in charge of this department some questions relating to fisheries. According to the estimates, there is one item called the Fishing Training Centre. I believe there is no plan to develop this centre, and this will be of no use for the production of more fish for local consumption. We may spend about $2 million every year on fisheries, but how much benefit can we get from this expenditure'? Whatever plans there may be to develop foreshore fishing, jetties, or what not, it seems that all these plans have come to nothing. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether the department has any plans this year to develop our fisheries, that is to say, whether there can be any increase in the production of fish locally. The Minister for Finance has also said that in recent years our agriculture has been declining. So I would like to ask him whether the department has any plans to develop our agriculture. The Member for Punggol has raised the point that the price of eggs is too cheap, and the Minister has said that when the price of eggs goes up, some Members complain, and that when it goes down, other people complain also. He complains about the difficulties involved. Of course, when there is a greater demand for certain items, the price should be better, It is my hope, however, that our farmers will get a better deal so that they may enjoy and have a share in our minor boom, or shall I say mini-prosperity. So if the price of eggs is too low, I would like to ask whether the Minister in charge can consider a campaign to help raise the price of eggs by holding a "Eat More Eggs Week" campaign, because eggs are very nourishing as they contain vitamins and protein. I think it will be very good for our people in building a rugged physique. I hope the Minister can think of some ways to help our farmers to remedy the situation and not just sit down and shake his leg. 4.45 p.m.

The Member has five minutes more to go before "guillotine" time. Mr Ho Kah Leong.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support what the Member for Sembawang has said. However, I do not support his suggestion about in-shore fishing, because I believe there are no large quantities of fish along the sea coast. I have a question to ask. Many farmers who have been resettled will not be allotted a large piece of land. They will be allotted about one or, at the most, one and a half acres of land. The majority of them get half or three-quarters of an acre of land. It is not economical to grow vegetables or other agricultural produce on such a small plot of land. Some farmers have already changed their means of livelihood and are making use of their land in other ways, for example, the rearing of fancy tropical fish. Other farmers have planted orchids. It seems that the Primary Production Department is not quite definite about the measures to be taken in this connection. So I want to ask whether it can give support to the farmers by way of securing foreign markets for their agricultural products. Thus they will not be exploited by unscrupulous local middlemen. I would also like to ask whether the Primary Production Department can provide our farmers with cheap fertilisers. This is one good way to help them in their horticultural production, otherwise they have to buy expensive fertilisers from local merchants.

The Parliamentary Secretary has three minutes to reply.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since I have very little time in which to reply, I will be brief. There is nothing new in what the Member for Sembawang has said. For instance, we have debated on deep-sea fishing before. However, perhaps he was not here when this question was raised. He has also said that the Primary Production Department is not efficient in its work. I would like him to consider this point. Our farmers are earning an income of $100 million per year. If the department has not been efficient, how is it possible for the farmers to earn so high an income as $100 million per year? I think the Member for Sembawang should know this fact very well. His other question is whether the department can provide the farmers with cheap fertilisers to help them in their horticultural production. The Primary Production Department can recommend certain types of fertilisers to the farmers to use. But it cannot sell such fertilisers to them. It is not a profit-making department. The Member's next question is about certain farmers changing their means of livelihood. As far as I know, there are still many farms in Singapore which need farmers. In fact, there are some large farms which are short of staff. I think that the change of livelihood by some farmers in the rural areas is not a serious question. As regards the allocation of land to farmers, our land area is limited. Normally we allot to the farmers affected half an acre to one acre of land. If the Member for Jurong has any better method to get large areas of land, we can then allot more land to our farmers.

The time is up.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I am not prepared to withdraw my amendment, because the Parliamentary Secretary has entirely ignored my question.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $1,927,570 for Head 73 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 74 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting (1) That the sum to be allocated for Head 74 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 103.

I am not moving, Sir.

Amendment No. (2) *, Mr Ng Kah Ting.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 74 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 209*. Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I welcome the big increase in the provision for roadside trees and shrubs, including the landscaping and improvement of open spaces and parks in the republic, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Law and National Development to the planting of such roadside trees and shrubs. Sir, it seems to me that the Parks and Trees Division has no creative or imaginative ideas about planting the necessary types of flowering shrubs or roadside trees in order to create the type of garden city that we wish to have. I bring this matter up because I see that although there has been a lot of planting of roadside trees and shrubs, there seems to be no landscaping in the work. A lot of trees and shrubs are planted, but what do they represent'? There may be greenery, yes, but from the point of view of beauty or artistic appreciation, there is none. The Parks and Trees Division has also embarked upon a scheme whereby commercial firms are encouraged to maintain their plots of greenery, and towards that end flowering shrubs and trees have been planted in certain areas. I have seen one or two of them, but I do not know whether or not they are being regularly maintained. Sir, to spend a sum of no less than $1.2 million requires very careful consideration. There must be creativeness and imagination in the planting of roadside trees and shrubs so that a truly green and beautiful garden city will come about.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Punggol is one of the very few who are dissatisfied with the Garden City campaign. Perhaps we should recruit him into the City Action Garden Committee and get some advice from him on landscaping. Sir, in order to meet the accelerated programme of work and to secure better control, the whole of Singapore has been divided into 14 administrative complexes. Each complex is in the charge of a horticultural officer with supporting staff to look after the roadside planting, including traffic surfaces, traffic islands, centre dividers, side tables and any open spaces near the roadside. For the next fiscal year, it is planned to plant an average of about 2,500 trees and 8,000 shrubs in each complex. The estimated cost in each complex is about $86,000. I can give the Member a list of the new parks, but I think I will be taking up the time of this House. Sir, when trees are planted or when there is a garden city campaign, various opinions are voiced. Some like our methods, but others do not. However, any suggestion from the Member for Punggol will be given due consideration by the head of the City Action Garden Committee.

I thank the Minister for his kind remarks. I was not actually voicing my dissatisfaction with the planting of trees and shrubs in the gardening campaign. What I said was that perhaps there should have been some imagination and creativeness in the planting. To illustrate my point, Sir, there was a big signboard at Punggol point which was eventually taken down. I asked for some flowering shrubs to be planted there. However, when I went up there. I could not see the shrubs although I was told that there were shrubs. I looked further. I went down the steps leading to the jetty and there I found a few trees and shrubs planted. That was not exactly the idea I had in mind. I was not consulted on this matter. If the Minister says I can be co-opted into this garden committee, I will be happy to offer any services that I can. With these remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $7,025,000 for Head 74 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

I think it is an appropriate time to have the suspension now. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

I suspend the sitting now and shall take the Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.59 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head 75 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 75 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 005 of subhead 201. Sir, I believe that this is the Public Works Department's first experience in the construction of a flyover road system. I would like to ask the Minister concerned whether there are any studies made since this road system was first opened at Jalan Toa Payoh/New Town Southern Access Interchange to see whether this system is safe, including the surface condition. I notice that part of this road is very badly pitted and it is a source of danger to road users. There is a very sharp bend at this flyover which is also another source of danger for road users. I am informed that quite a number of accidents have occurred along this bend. Two vehicles so far have overturned, fortunately without any loss of life. It is a pity that this Pan-Island Expressway is so poorly constructed. It is true that some minor repairs have been done to the road surface. But, at the moment, many of these repairs are on the point of breaking up again. I would ask the Minister concerned whether any appropriate measures will be taken to rectify these faults.

Sir, Jalan Toa Payoh/ New Town Southern Access Interchange is the major access into Toa Payoh New Town from Jalan Toa Payoh. Jalan Toa Payoh is just a part of the proposed Pan-Island Expressway and, in order to provide an uninterrupted flow of traffic along Jalan Toa Payoh, a flyover was constructed. This flyover permits free right-turn movements from Jalan Toa Payoh into Toa Payoh New Town and vice versa. Since the right-turn traffic at this point is separated and provided for at two levels, the accident risks are reduced. According to accident statistics obtained from the Accidents Branch, Traffic Police, only three accidents have occurred near Jalan Toa Payoh flyover and 10 accidents near Kim Keat Road during the period 1st January, 1970, to the 28th February, 1971. That is a period of 14 months, According to the Accidents Branch, these few accidents were due to carelessness of either the pedestrians or the drivers. Jalan Toa Payoh was constructed largely over swamp land. A considerable amount of filling had to be carried out and hence, over a period of years, there has been continuous settlement of the earth. And this has given rise to unevenness of the road surface and the road breaking up in some parts. Because of the continued construction taking place in and around Toa Payoh New Town, permanent repairs have not yet been carried out. Various service departments have been laying services along Jalan Toa Payoh. I assure the Member that as soon as all such works are completed, the entire road will be properly resurfaced.

Sir, I am satisfied with the Minister's reply and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 75 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 206. Sir, the sum allocated for item 001 of subhead 206 is $50,000 for the improvement of Sembawang Road from 10 m.s. to 13 m.s., which includes Nee Soon. Because of the widening of the road in this area, some shops are to be demolished. For example, in the Sembawang area, more than 100 shops are affected by the widening of the road. As the Member of Parliament for that area, I am very concerned with this plan. This also includes the Nee Soon area. I have some questions to ask the Parliamentary Secretary concerned. Firstly, when will the road-widening project be expected to commence? About 100 shops are affected in the Sembawang area, to say nothing of the Thomson and Nee Soon areas. Are there any plans to resettle those who are affected? I would like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that before the project is started, it is better to build some shophouses for resettling those who are affected by the project, which will reduce their sufferings and difficulties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, plans for the widening of Sembawang Road from Mandai Road junction, 9½ m.s., to Canberra Gate, 13 m.s., are being finalised. Work is expected to commence next year as soon as buildings and structures affected by the road widening can be cleared and resettled. Clearance action is being taken by the Resettlement Department of the Housing and Development Board. The usual resettlement assistance and terms will be offered to affected residents and shopkeepers.

(In Mandarin): Sir, since the Parliamentary Secretary has given me a satisfactory answer, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 75 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 211. Sir, this sum is meant for the widening of Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim. This is a major thoroughfare from the city area to Jurong Town. At the moment, this road is a dual carriageway. In Jurong, there are more than 200 factories and there are many workers. At peak hours, the traffic along this road is very heavy. If there is an accident, very often the traffic jam created is two or three miles long. If there is a factory fire, as the Member for River Valley has said, before the fire-engine can arrive at the scene of the fire, the factory will have already been razed to the ground. So the road is too narrow at the moment. In the estimate for the coming financial year, we finally see a vote for $500,000 for the widening of Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim. I believe that all the people working in Jurong town will be very happy about it. I would like to know how many traffic lanes will be built and when the work is expected to commence.

Sir, as to the last question, work will commence in the middle of this year. Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim was constructed when the Jurong Industrial Estate was first developed. In the early years of Jurong, traffic using the road was limited and therefore only two lanes for traffic going up to and two lanes for traffic leaving Jurong were constructed with adequate reserve set aside for future widening. With the rapid development in Jurong, the traffic using Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim, which is at present the main arterial road from Jurong into the city, has increased by leaps and bounds. It is essential, therefore, to widen the road to cope with the increased traffic. In fact, it will be a dual carriageway.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 75 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 307. Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that many of the existing roads need urgent repairs; repairs in the sense that I have noticed that quite a number of roads which have been dug up and repaired, have become bumpy as a result. Take Punggol Road as an example. Certain stretches are quite bumpy, and when complaints are made, the Public Works Department steps in to patch up some of the pot-holes. As a result of this patching up, you get the bumps. Sir, I wonder whether the Ministry has plans to resurface Punggol Road which is in very dire need of resurfacing. 5.45 p. m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I gave the Member the answer when replying to one of his questions in respect of the widening of Punggol Road. I did assure him that repairs would be undertaken to keep the roads in a satisfactory condition for use by traffic, and that a feasibility study into the widening of Punggol Road was being done. I agree with the Member that quite a few of our roads are bumpy, as a result of some department digging them up either in respect of water mains, electricity mains or even telephone cables. It is unsatisfactory to see a nice new road recently widened and then, not even a month later, some department comes along and digs it up. When they fill it up, obviously they cannot make it level. They will have to fill it up a little higher, otherwise the level sinks. So, as a result, quite a few of our roads have these bumps which remain for a very long time until the whole length of the road is resurfaced completely. There is a Road Co-ordination Committee, comprising the service departments, such as the Singapore Telephone Board, the Public Utilities Board and the Public Works Department. This is to ensure that there is maximum coordination. In fact, no one now is allowed to dig up a newly-resurfaced road or a newly built road within a period of one year when the work is completed, unless they get the permission of the Director of Public Works. Sometimes this permission cannot be withheld, especially when a water main bursts.

I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 75 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 311. Sir, this concerns Phase II of the approach roads and car parks for the Kallang sports complex. It is scheduled to be completed in 1971-72 and the sum of $750,000 is now voted for this purpose. What I wish to know is the location of this Phase II of the approach roads and car parks for the Kallang sports complex and what will become of the existing road off Mountbatten Road leading to Kallang Park. Will the Minister clarify this?

Sir, the first phase of the approach roads and car parks to the National Stadium was completed at the end of 1970 and is now open to the public. The second phase, including car park facilities, is expected to be completed in March 1972. The implementation of the second phase will complete the road system for the Kallang sports complex and will include another car park for a thousand cars. In addition to this, bus bays will also be provided in the car park for a bus terminus. Half of the old runway from Mountbatten Road to another road parallel to Jalan Benaan Kapal, together with a big parking scheme and other link roads, will constitute the second phase of this project. The other half of the runway will become part of the pedestrian mall in the stadium complex. At present the old runway is being used as an access into Kallang Park. However, in view of the implementation of the second phase, it is not proposed to reconstruct this runway. Traffic wanting access into Kallang Park can by-pass the runway by using Jalan Benaan Kapal. In fact, this has already been used as a bus route. In the meantime, very bad pot-holes in the runway will be patched up as and when necessary. If the Member seeks further details, I have a sketch plan which I will be glad to show to him.

I thank the Minister for his information and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $14,183,040 for Head 75 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 78 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 78 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 101. Sir, the subject matter "Urban and Rural Services" under Head 78 provides yet another classic example of the lopsided mentality of the Ministry of National Development. The provision of a meagre sum of only $450,000 for agricultural and kampong roads is out of logical proportion when one compares this "chicken-feed" of a mere half a million dollars to the funds allocated for the Parks and Trees Division in the same Ministry. One cannot help but wonder if the Ministry of National Development has actually lost its sense of judgement, or has acquired a somewhat queer sense of priority over the years. Let me invite Members to take a quick look at the amount of public funds set aside for our city beautification projects: $ Development of New Parks 1,590,000 Improvement of Parks and Open Spaces 1,210,000 Roadside Trees and Shrubs, including Landscaping and Improvement of Open Spaces and Parks 1,200,000 Vehicles for Parks and Trees Division 300,000 ----------- Total $4,3000,000 =========== The total, together with another $1,560,000 provided in the Ordinary Estimates, gives a grand total of $5,860,000. Sir, I am not without any sense of aesthetic preference, and I certainly would not want to create the impression that I am out to torpedo this fine project of beautifying our city. It is true that we have now reached a stage where gracious living has become the common aspirations of the middle and upper income groups. So be it. It is not a sin for anyone who has the means to seek a more profitable and gracious living, but let us not forget to look at the other side of the coin -- the less colourful and less glamorous side of the happy facade. Would not the rural people be entitled to a better deal, if only it means a little slice of the cream? Does the Ministry of National Development really believe that a mere miserable sum of $450,000, which is not even 10 per cent of the monies to be spent on parks and trees, is sufficient to build or repair the rural and kampong roads? My constituency alone requires many times more than that. The rural folks are simple and their wants modest. Whilst we enjoy what the Minister for Finance has said to be a mild or mini-boom, would not a little more be spent on the poor rural folks? Would we be asking too much or unreasonably demanding too exorbitantly of the Government to plough back just that little bit more so as to make life for the rural people a little bit easier? May I reiterate that the needs of the rural people are indeed minimal. I would not burden the House by, relating any further hardship of the farmers and the fishermen, for my other colleagues have in the past few days adequately informed this House. It is all very well for the Government to say that it is preoccupied with other priority matters in restructuring our economy in the face of the British pullout, but a somewhat apathetic attitude towards the rural people is something that surprises me, because we have said so much and claimed to be able to do so much for the rural people. There are roads built several years ago, but they were constructed on the standard classified as "kampong and rural roads", which means a mere surfacing of the track of land without a foundation at all. This method of constructing kampong roads might well suit the needs of the people, but after several heavy rainfalls, the surface of these roads is washed away and potholes appear after a short time. The condition of the roads then is not better than what it was before. It is always an agonising experience for the rural folks, like the farmers and even their wives, to have to transport heavy loads of farm produce to market over these roads, not to mention the little children who use the roads on their way to school. The situation is even worse during the monsoon season when the farmers and their children have to struggle to find their way home in a tortuous way. Would not the Government consider a better construction method, such as laying a foundation for these roads so that they can last longer and provide easy access for the farmers and the country folks? It is easy for us as city dwellers to neglect this aspect of the rural life as we move around the town in cars and other modern modes of transport over one of the best roads ever constructed in this part of the world. I sincerely urge the Minister to be a little generous and sympathetic towards the rural people who, after all, do contribute in whatever small way they can towards the building of our republic. They have done nothing wrong to justify the second-class treatment from the Government.

Mr Ho Kah Leong, are you talking on the same item?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of what the Member for Changi has said.

For your information Mr Ho, "guillotine" time is 6.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard what the Member for Changi has said, not only do we feel sorry about the present policy of the Government in regard to the rural areas, but we also feel that we have not done enough for the rural people. In spite of the fact that the Government has all this time been claiming that it has been doing a lot for the rural people, in actual fact it has been doing more for the urban people than the rural people, as pointed out by the Member for Changi. 6.00 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, the amount of money spent on beautifying our city area exceeds by ten times the sum allotted for the roads in the rural areas. I would like to remind the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary that the rural people also pay taxes. They do not just sit down and enjoy the fruits given by the Government. So they are entitled to ask for better roads. Sir, I also endorse the view of the Member for Changi when he says that this meagre sum of $450,000 is far from adequate for the construction of roads in the rural areas. From my own experience over the past few years, I know that unless the roads in the rural areas are metalled, they are useless and the money spent on making them is wasted, because after a monsoon or a heavy downpour they will be badly affected and a lot of money will have to go towards repairing them. Therefore, I propose that the Government should allocate more money for the rural roads. I am not asking too much, but Government should spend as much money on them as they are spending on beautifying the city or building more gardens. At least they should spend what is necessary for metalling them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the sum of $450,000 is allocated under this Head for the construction and repair of agricultural and kampong roads. If this sum is found inadequate, more money can be transferred from the other items under the same subhead. There is no need, therefore, to divert funds allocated for the beautifying of Singapore, which is equally important, as our hitherto fruitful efforts to make Singapore a garden city should be sustained and intensified further. Sir, I can assure the House that, despite a certain sum of money set aside to beautify our city, the Government's efforts to help the kampong people will continue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think much can be done by setting aside even the whole vote for this Head, which is only $2,475,000, for road building and repairing. How can the Parliamentary Secretary tackle the more than 10 rural constituencies, where the roads were built some four or five years ago, with only $2 million? Therefore, we ask that the Ministry listen to all the Members from the rural constituencies who are pleading for more money to be allocated for building and repairing roads. That is what we are interested in.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I quite agree that we have to provide more money for the repair of roads or other services in the rural areas. Sir, I have a brief here regarding the outstanding requests submitted through all the constituencies which were deferred from last year.

Some of them are four years old!

There are about 106 outstanding requests amounting to $1.75 million. So, according to the 1971-72 provision, the urban and rural services come to about $2.7 million. I think that adequately provides for all the projects.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary inform this House of the deferred applications - what sort of applications they are, and whether the present allocation is enough to meet the requirements of the deferred applications for services to be provided?

Yes, we can meet all the outstanding requests.

Sir, in spite of the effort made by the Parliamentary Secretary to answer this very difficult question, I hope that he, being also the Chairman of the Urban and Rural Services Committee, will give his fullest support to our request and provide all Members from the rural constituencies with an easier or better means of dealing with our constituencies. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 78 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 011 of subhead 101. In order to save time, may I, in my remarks, range over item 012* of subhead 101? * The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 78 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 012 of subhead 101.

Yes.

Sir, I do not quite follow the Parliamentary Secretary's remark that there is a provision of $2.7 million for urban and rural services in 1971-72. In actual fact, it is only $2.475 million. He says that this provision is adequate to cover all the outstanding requests by all the constituencies. In other words, what he means possibly is the requests from the urban as well as the rural constituencies. But I do not know whether he realises that there are still more requests to come as a result, and therefore, this provision of $ 2.475 million is grossly inadequate. I note, with gratitude, that the Minister for Finance is here with us at this moment, and I would urge him to give us some sympathy. When I say "give us some sympathy", I mean I can safely speak for those Members who come from the rural areas, including the Minister of State for Finance who comes from Choa Chu Kang. He is nodding his head, too, in approval. Coming to the point of making requests to the Urban and Rural Services Committee, I think it is high time the U.R.S.C. formulated a new method by which requests can be considered as quickly as possible and not through the District Committees. In other words, processing requests through the District Committees invariably causes a lot of time being used up. Sir, may I come to my point about the extension of water supply as well as electricity supply? Members may care to note that an amount of $382,900 was unspent last year on the extension of water supply. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is fully aware that there are requests that have been outstanding for several years. The reason why these requests have been outstanding for so many years is simply that they could not be met as a result of the costs involved. And the Urban and Rural Services Committee was a bit reluctant to consider favourably these requests. I now come to electricity supply. The provision of $50,000, I take it, is a subsidy for the electrification scheme, but I am disappointed to note that of late the Electricity Department of the Public Utilities Board has not been able to implement the various electrification schemes, thereby causing delays of up to two years. I think the Parliamentary Secretary does have a list, or maybe two lists which have been prepared by the P.U.B. Electricity Department indicating how they will be implementing such electrification schemes. Many of the Members of Parliament for the rural areas know that these requests for electricity as well as water supplies, and, for that matter, the making up of agricultural and kampong roads, have been made quite some time ago. And "quite some time ago", as the Member for Changi has remarked -means four or five years ago. And some of these requests are still outstanding. The reason is quite simple. The funds allocated to the rural constituencies are paltry, negligible sums. Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean to say that the rural folk should not enjoy the same amenities as those enjoyed by the city folk? The rural folk, for the information of the Parliamentary Secretary, also pay the same rates as those paid by the city folk for water and electricity supplies. They pay the full rate not just the domestic rate alone, especially the farmers.. In winding up my speech, so as to give the Parliamentary Secretary sufficient time to reply, I would urge, should this provision be insufficient, that the Urban and Rural Services Committee should not hesitate to ask for more money from the Minister for Finance in order to accede to the requests made from the rural constituencies.

Sir, there is a revote of $382,900 as some water supply projects which were approved during the current financial year have not yet been completed, and bills have not yet been presented for payment. It is expected that these bills will be received and paid in the coming financial year. Priority will be given to water supply projects which cost less but benefit more people. Projects which cost $50,000 or $60,000, which means they are big projects, and which will benefit comparatively less people will be given low priority. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have two types of water supply projects. One is to lay water sub-mains in areas now served by public stand-pipes, so that the residents can make individual water connections into their houses and later, when water supply is available in the houses, to remove the public stand-pipes. The other type is to lay water mains in areas not served now with pipe-water. The first type of project is usually given priority over the second type as it is the policy to remove all public standpipes and prevent wastage of water. 6.15 p.m.

It is "guillotine" time.

I am not happy with the reply and I wish to take a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allotted for Head 78 having expired, the following amendment standing in the names of Mr Teong Eng Siong and Mr Ho Kah Leong, was not proceeded with: (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head 78 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101. The sum of $2,475,000 for Head 78 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 81 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 81 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 109 Sir, this new provision is for the Rehabilitation Centre for Hemiplegics and Paraplegics at Mandalay Road, Tan Tock Seng Hospital. I would like to ask the Minister for Health what is the purpose and the scope of this centre. I notice this is the first time that the Government has come into the picture in rehabilitating hemiplegics and paraplegics. Sir, I wonder whether the Minister for Health has any plans to assist those welfare organisations which look after such cases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposal to establish a centre for paraplegic patients was under study by my Ministry early in 1969. At that time it was envisaged to build a hospital or paraplegic centre for long-staying patients and a sheltered workshop. However, in late 1969 this proposal was expanded to include medical as well as surgical rehabilitation. This called for a revision of the plan and the estimates of the cost. The revision was not finalised until July 1970 and, therefore, it was too late for the proposals to be included in the 1970-71 estimates. That is the reason why it has appeared for the first time in this year's estimates. With regard to the scope of the centre, may I say that at the moment paraplegics and hemiplegics are being admitted or treated at the Outram Road General Hospital, the Thomson Road General Hospital and the Tan Tock Seng Hospital. Most of the in-patients invariably remain in the hospital for a long period of time for the purpose of receiving effective care, and this has resulted in the number of hospital beds being correspondingly reduced for use by other more acute cases for whom hospital treatment is particularly needed, If there is a centre where such patients can be taken care of exclusively, it will result in a number of beds in the hospitals being released for other medical and surgical cases. The paraplegics and hemiplegics will also be able to leave the hospital earlier, saving two to three months of hospitalisation, and Government funds accordingly. Hence, the purpose of the centre is twofold. First, to relieve the acute shortage of hospital beds by discharging long-staying paraplegic and hemiplegic patients from the hospitals to the centre and second, to provide facilities for a more positive way for paraplegics and hemiplegics to rehabilitate themselves. The centre will provide accommodation to cater for 70 to 80 in-patients as well as rehabilitation for outpatients and for surgical and medical cases. As for the aid which my Ministry is giving to the voluntary welfare organisations concerned with the rehabilitation of physically disabled persons, may I say that at the moment my Ministry exempts from hospital charges and outpatient charges certain categories of patients from the following organisations: (1) the Spastic Children's Association of Singapore: (2) the Cheshire Home: (3) the Singapore Red Cross for Handicapped Children: (4) the Singapore Association for the Blind; (5) the Singapore Association for Retarded Children; and (6) the Singapore Association for the Deaf and Dumb. Furthermore, medico-socio workers from my Ministry contribute to the activities of the first five voluntary organisations which I have mentioned above, and the Society for Aid to the Paralysed, by serving on their committees at different levels, such as executive case work, admission to homes, employment and management. The Government makes a yearly financial grant to some of these organisations. The following amounts have been provided in the 1971-72 estimates: $ (1)The Singapore Red Cross Home for Handicapped Children 20,200 (2)The Singapore Association for the Deaf and Dumb 12,000 (3)The Spastic Children's Association of Singapore 4,200 I believe the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Affairs have also provided aid in the form of sending instructors and welfare teachers to these organisations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 81 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 603. Mr Speaker. Sir, with your permission, I wish to range over the amendment* against subhead 605 which stands in my name. * The amendment reads as follows: (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head 81 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 605

Yes.

Sir, the provision of $1.5 million is for the purchase of vehicles for the Public Cleansing Service and Environmental Public Health. My question is this: I wonder whether the Minister for Health is aware that a good number of the public cleansing vehicles need cleaning themselves, because I have come across several of them travelling along Upper Serangoon Road and not only are they dirty looking but a lot of watery waste drips from them as they pass by on their way to the Tampines dumping ground. Sir, there have been campaigns such as "Keep Singapore Clean", "Keep Singapore Clean and Green"; "Keep Singapore Clean and Pollution Free". Action has also been taken against people who do not obey the law to keep Singapore clean. However, I hope that before the Ministry of Health takes any action against the law-breakers it should put its own house in order, that is, keep its own vehicles clean. I also wonder whether the Minister for Health is aware that the collection of refuse and garbage is very inadequate. There are several bin centres in my area for which there is only one daily collection. But the bin centres will be again full before the next day. I hope that with the purchase of more public cleansing vehicles, the situation will be remedied. I come now to the question of refuse treatment and disposal plants. I note with very deep regret that the token vote of $10 is still a revote. I shall be grateful if the Minister can enlighten this House on what this $10 token vote is for. How can the Ministry conduct any study into refuse treatment and disposal plants with this $10? Are there going to be refuse treatment and disposal plants in the republic, and, if so, where are they?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that the provision under subhead 603 has been reduced by $96,500 for this year. I would like to ask the Minister for Health whether this provision is sufficient to meet the needs of the public cleansing service. As far as I know, the number of lorries for removing garbage is not sufficient. I had occasion to observe privately-owned lorries hired by the Ministry of Health to remove garbage. These lorries are not suitable for the purpose. I have seen garbage spilling on to the road from such lorries. Such a state of affairs will not help to improve the cleanliness of our roads. On the contrary, our roads will become dirty when these lorries pass. Another matter I wish to touch upon is that the workers of the Public Cleansing Department are not supplied with the necessary tools, such as changkols, scythes, knives, etc, to clean the drains in the rural areas. I myself have noticed that the workers engaged in cleaning the drains in the Geylang Serai area are handicapped for lack of tools and so are not able to cut away the thick growth of grass which is choking up the drains. The result is that the drains have become breeding grounds for mosquitoes. This is one of the reasons why there are many mosquitoes in the Geylang Serai area. The workers lack the necessary tools to carry out their work properly. I hope the Minister for Health will do what is necessary to overcome this shortcoming.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first reply to the point about the inadequacy of the allocation for the purchase of the refuse removal vehicles. I agree with the Member that the allocation is not sufficient. In fact, we did ask for $2.5 million, but we were given only $1.5 million.

Passing back the buck to the Minister for Finance!

No, we are not passing the buck back. We always carry the "bucks" to the Tampines dumping ground! We have to carry them there. I must sympathise with the Member for Punggol because he happens to be in Punggol Constituency where the dumping ground is situated. As a result of the reduced allocation, we can only purchase vehicles proportionate to the amount of the allocation which we have been given. In fact, working on the actual volume of refuse we have collected from the beginning of this year, we estimate that the volume of refuse per day would be 1,375 tons. We therefore require an additional 37 refuse collectors, 15 covered crane wagons and 15 covered tippers with cranes. With regard to the complaint about refuse vehicles themselves being dirty, and that the Ministry of Health is not keeping its own house clean, may I say that, as far as I know - I think the Member for Punggol must admit it -nowadays the refuse vehicles are much cleaner than they used to be. Perhaps the Member might have seen a few refuse vehicles which might not be that clean. As I have always said, we have of course black sheep among our employees. I shall therefore be very grateful to the Member for Punggol if he will be diligent enough to take down the numbers of the vehicles which are dirty. 6.30 p.m.

Your Ministry's officials should keep an eye on them. I am not employed to look after your Ministry!

We have our inspectors who will be keeping an eye on these vehicles. But we feel that it will be helpful to us if, as a responsible member of the public, the Member for Punggol will lend us a hand if he happens to see any refuse vehicle which is not clean and note down its number. I am sure he is that public-spirited.

I will.

Good. As regards the complaint about some of the refuse vehicles dripping liquid as they go along, may I say that, in fact, this is caused by the refuse which we get from the markets and households. It is very wet refuse. But in order that the capacity of the refuse trucks can take advantage of holding more refuse inside and thus cutting down on haulage costs, the refuse is compressed. And because of the compression, liquid comes out. This is unavoidable. But our order to the crews of the refuse vehicles is that the compression should take place when the wagon is stationary and not while it is moving. Again, if the Member for Punggol sees a moving refuse vehicle which is dripping liquid, can he also lend us a hand by giving us its number?

I have only two hands to lend!

I believe the Member for Punggol is a man of many parts; and I am quite sure he will do us this service! The point brought up by the Member for Geylang Serai is that he saw some open, wagons which were hired by the Ministry of Health for carrying refuse, and the wagons were such that the refuse was blown off. That is not the case at the moment. That could have been the case in the past when there was a shortage of refuse vehicles. And it was inevitable that we had to hire open lorries which were not suitable for carrying refuse. But this could not be avoided, and whenever such open lorries were hired to carry refuse, strict instructions were given to cover the refuse with canvas so that no refuse could be blown off. Here again if the Member for Geylang Serai is civic conscious enough and he sees any such lorries passing by, we will be extremely grateful if he can give us the number of the vehicle.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if this kind of complaint is made, perhaps we may not be able to see the Minister in his office.

Sir, the Member does not have to see me to put in a complaint. He can easily post it to me.

That will be too late.

It is not too late at all. He can just give us the number of the lorry, the time and date when it happened, and that is good enough. Sir, I think I have answered all the points.

What about refuse treatment?

I am sorry I missed that point. As far as refuse treatment is concerned, may I say that since last year when I spoke on this subject brought up by the Member for Punggol, we have progressed a stage further. At the moment, there is a firm of consulting engineers who are doing a survey to ascertain the most suitable method or combination of methods for refuse disposal in Singapore. Their report is expected to be submitted on the 10th of April. May I say that the proposals are whether we should go for incineration or for a compacting plant. It has taken some time to do this survey, because this is not a matter which we can treat in a light-hearted manner, as all the factors have to be considered. If I may inform the House, one incineration plant which can incinerate 1,000 tons of refuse a day will cost something like $20 to $25 million. I do not think I need explain the alternative methods of refuse disposal. I have dealt with them quite comprehensively last year and I do not wish to repeat them again.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered the question about the shortage of implements for public cleansing workers to clean the drains.

Sir, it is not true that cleansing workers do not have access to these implements. In fact, if Members see them working, they always have a broom and a spade. They are supposed to shovel out the refuse from the drains. There is no excuse for them to say that they have no access to any implements, because they are available. If they do not have the implements, they can approach the overseer and ask for them.

Sir, in view of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 81 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 703. Sir, this is a vote for the development and improvement to markets and hawkers' sites. As we all know and as we can see around a new market, there are stalls selling cooked food. Dirty and torn tarpaulins are used as roofing for these stalls and they are a very ugly sight, especially when they are in a new market. Therefore, I am glad to note that recently the Ministry of Health has taken steps to put up new hawker sites to accommodate these hawkers. I would also like to point out to the Minister that the wash basins and other facilities provided should be practical for the hawker sites. Otherwise the money spent will be wasted. I can give one example, Sir. In my constituency, in Taman Jurong Market I, the shelters put up for cooked food stalls are not large enough to cover the hawkers from the sun or the rain. It is as good as having no shelter. Because of this, the hawkers have to use their own canvas and tarpaulins for shelter. The wash basins provided are not properly constructed and inadequate for their use. As a result, the hawkers do not make good use of them. Another point is about the water supply to the dressed poultry sellers. At present, the anti-waste type of taps are provided. Whenever they want to use water, they have to press for it. They would rather have the ordinary taps which can be turned on for water when they pluck off the feathers of the chickens and ducks. I suggest that ordinary taps be constructed for them instead of anti-waste taps.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I quite agree with some of the remarks made by the Member for Jurong about the unsightly hawker stalls and the shelters which they erect. In fact, these are the stalls which are situated in the concourse of the market; they are not in the market itself. As far as the stalls in the market proper are concerned, they are properly sheltered and ventilated. I presume the Member for Jurong is referring to the market in his constituency. This is the market which I myself visited last year during the "Keep Singapore Clean and Pollution Free" Campaign and I know the problems that we face in this market. In fact, the hawker stalls are situated in the concourse of the market. The concourse of a market is not a place for hawker stalls. These makeshift measures were put up by the hawkers themselves and they result in unsightly and unsatisfactory shelters. Under these difficult circumstances, the Hawkers Department of the Ministry is doing its very best to provide washing facilities. May I say that, in view of all these experiences, the new markets which are built are of an improved design. If I may explain here, normally when there is a market for market produce, we have a gathering of unauthorised hawkers who sell cooked food around the market. And these are the cooked food hawkers who are resettled in the concourse of the market which is not built for such a purpose. But the design of the new markets is such that we build not only market for market produce but also a section for cooked food. And the cooked food stalls are built in such a way that each stall has its own washing area with drains leading into the sewers. 6.45 p.m.

It is "guillotine" time now, Mr Chua.

(In Mandarin): Sir, owing to the shortage of time, I have no choice but to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head 81 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting, were not proceeded with: (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head 81 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 705. (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head 81 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 804. The sum $5,572,200 for Head 81 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 91 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Low Guan Onn -

Mr Low is not here. Mr Teong, amendment No. (2)*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ng Yeow Chong.)

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 91 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 003*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ng Yeow Chong.) Sir, this subhead relates to a loan to the Housing and Development Board amounting to $100,000,000. Since its inception, the Housing and Development Board has been providing cheap flats for our people. It has achieved a lot in this respect. In recent years the Housing and Development Board has introduced the Home Ownership Scheme to provide low-cost housing for the poorer people. The workers can now make use of their Central Provident Fund money to make a down-payment for the flats. I have received quite a number of complaints about the high rentals charged by the Housing and Development Board. The complaints come especially from people who are affected by the urban renewal projects and who have to move to the Housing and Development Board flats which are rented out at high rates. Ordinary shops are rented out at $300-$400 a month, whereas coffee shops and eating houses are rented out at between $1,500 and $2,000 a month. These high rentals will put them in great difficulties. Therefore, I have two suggestions to make to the Minister and I hope he will consider them. Their implementation will remedy the situation to some extent. (1) Can the Minister consider the sale of shop premises in the same way as the Government is selling Housing Board flats to people on hire purchase? In this way, the Government need not ask for loans. (2) The Government can thus use the proceeds of the sales to supplement further construction of such shop premises so that they do not need to increase the rents. This will reduce the burden of the renters of the shop premises. Very often the traders cannot cover the rental from the proceeds of their trade. I hope the Minister will give consideration to the two suggestions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I intended to raise has already been raised during the earlier debate on the Housing and Development Board flats. So I am not speaking now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the suggestion by the Member for Sembawang that is the sale of shop premises by the Housing and Development Board to the occupiers or tenants, there is one difficulty. This is with regard to non-citizens. The Member may be interested to know that, as far as residential flats are concerned, one has to be a citizen of Singapore in order to qualify, but for shops, no question of citizenship arises. Citizens or non-citizens affected or not affected by urban renewal can tender for Housing and Development Board flats. This will raise some difficulty. The main question is whether or not these people want to buy. We have, in fact, carried out a sample survey to ascertain the wishes of these shopkeepers and the majority have expressed no desire to buy. They prefer to carry on renting on the present terms. As for the rents, the Member was concerned mainly about shopkeepers affected by urban renewal. Those affected by clearance are given concessionary rentals based on the average tendered rental, starting at 70 per cent of the average tendered rental for the first year, 80 per cent for the second year, 90 per cent for the third year, and only in the fourth year do they pay the full one hundred per cent. In other words, they are given not only priority of allocation, but also a concession on rentals, provided they are affected by some Government clearance schemes. Of course, it is admitted that many of the cases are rent-controlled premises and whatever concessionary rentals offered by the Government at present, they are still higher than the rents they previously paid. There is another method by which we are trying to help our shopkeepers if they can get together in sufficient numbers to form a company and put up their own building. The Member will be interested to know that the Government has already offered and concluded one such transaction with a group of shopkeepers affected in Precinct South III, in the area bounded by Upper Hokien Street, South Bridge Road, Upper Cross Street and New Bridge Road. These shopkeepers have formed themselves into a company jointly to redevelop a site offered by Government. Plans have already been submitted by this group for the site. This is one way to assist them where we can. In addition, there is a second case. Government is also working out another pilot reallocation programme, and this is in respect of shopkeepers affected by resettlement around the area known as Precinct North III, bounded by Victoria Street, Arab Street, North Bridge Road and Rochore Road. They are affected by urban renewal. We realise that some shopkeepers have suffered as a result of being evicted from rent-controlled premises into Housing and Development Board premises, where even though we give them these concessions, they have to tender in competition with others. One way is to allow them to build their own premises and we are doing so. We have concluded a deal with one such group. There is a second project on hand and I hope there will be many more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I raise a point in relation to shophouses owned by the Housing and Development Board? I came across a case recently of one shopkeeper who has a licence to use his premises as a shoe-repairing shop, but he introduced, as a side line inside the premises a watch repairing facility. He was hauled up by the Housing and Development Board official concerned and was told, "Look, you must not do this because your licence does not permit it." I tried to intervene and said, "Look, why cannot you be flexible about the whole thing?" The official replied, "Well, this has got to go through such and such a committee and they will probably turn it down. The best thing is to forget about it and tell him to shut down the side line." Will the Housing and Development Board be more flexible in the use of shophouses?

There are difficulties here, Sir, because when the shops are tendered, they are tendered for specific purposes, either coffee shops or some other business, and sometimes they change. Provided it is not a complete change, I think the Board will consider it. There is a committee to consider applications of this nature, but it would be, in my view, a little oppressive on the part of the Housing and Development Board, if a man is having difficulties with his business and wants to start a side line, to say, "You cannot do this." The Board can strictly do so under the terms of the tenancy where they tie him up and say, "You will only use the shop for repairing watches." The moment he branches into something else, they enforce the tenancy agreement and throw him out for breach of some terms. My own view is that we should be more reasonable. If Members come across tenants who want to change, I would suggest that they bring this to the attention of the Member for Anson who handles this matter on my behalf in the Ministry of National Development. I am sure he will give their request every consideration.

(In Mandarin): I do not quite agree with what the Minister has said just now in connection with the sale of shop premises belonging to the Housing and Development Board, that the response to a survey which his officials carried out was not very good. I do not know when they carried out the survey. In my opinion, many renters of shop premises are very interested in buying over the shop premises because they can pay on hire purchase terms, and after some time they can own the shop premises. This will reduce their burden. If the Minister is interested in giving it a trial, I suggest that he carry out another survey to see whether the response from the shop renters is good.

By "recently" I mean about a year ago, if conditions have changed, we will have another survey. Of course, the survey is not extensive throughout Singapore. It is a sample survey.

(In Mandarin): I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 91 to reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 004. Sir, there is only a token vote of $10 to be given as a loan to the National Stadium Corporation for this subhead. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the loan provided last year was enough so that in the coming year there is no such need for any vote. Perhaps the proceeds from Singapore Pools (Pte.) Ltd. are sufficient to meet the expenditure involved in the building of a National Stadium. Could the Parliamentary Secretary enlighten the House on this? 7.00 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the National Stadium will cost about $18 million for the building and the complex. On completion, the stadium will be able to accommodate 50,000 people. If necessary, we can expand the seating capacity in future to accommodate another 50,000 people. Work began in December 1969 and the whole project is expected to be completed by 1972. So far we have completed 52 per cent of the whole project. Recently we have asked for tenders for the installation of lighting, and other facilities. We have so far spent $4 million on the building itself, of which $1 million is spent on piling. About the $10 token vote, it is because the Toto company, Singapore Pools (Pte.) Ltd. has already provided $6 million for this project, and will give more in future, that the Government does not require any additional vote for this.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 91 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Sim Boon Woo.) Sir, the provision for Loans to Industrial and Commercial Enterprises for the next financial year has been increased three-fold. Apart from the explanation in the Memorandum on the Development Estimates of Singapore, I would like to seek further clarification from the Minister for Finance as to how this huge sum of nearly $200 million will be utilised. The explanatory note in the memorandum (para. 84 at page 12) is somewhat unclear where it says: 'A sum of $96.00 million will be provided for the Development Bank of Singapore. In 1968, the Government has approved two lines of credit totalling $80.00 million; however in May and December 1970, further lines of credit amounting to $374.00 million were approved.' Among other enterprises, we have Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, and Jurong Shipbuilders and the rest coming within the scope of this provision. So I shall be grateful if the Minister for Finance can explain to this House what lines of credit are involved.

Mr Sim Boon Woo? He is not here. The Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen): Mr Speaker, Sir, the information given in the memorandum is, of course, merely a summary. The sums which have been provided are in respect of projects which will be examined by the Development Bank of Singapore. The position about the Development Bank of Singapore is that sums are provided for the Bank, out of which they make loans to private industry. The lines of credit which have been mentioned in the memorandum have been provided partly for loans to industrial organisations and partly for real estate financing, and the various lines have different interest rates, depending upon the nature of financing. In the case of estate financing, the interest rate charged is different. It is eight per cent as against other lines which vary from five per cent for special projects to seven per cent. The drawings will depend upon the rate at which the loans are approved by the Development Bank of Singapore and when disbursements are required, so that the amount which is provided here depends really on the amount which is likely to be disbursed. For example, in 1970-71 the amount which was disbursed by the Development Bank of Singapore was $61 million, so that, allowing for the increase in activity which we expect as the projects get larger in size and scope, we think a provision of $96 million may be required. In the case of Neptune Orient Lines, the provision has been made in order that their expansion programme can be carried out. Purchase of the following vessels is contemplated in 197l-72: (1) One combination carrier at a total cost of $1.5 million. (2) One 8,000-deadweight-ton dry cargo ship for $6 million. (3) Two 12,000-ton cargo ships for $20 million. These are second-hand ships. (4) Two 26,000-deadweight-ton tankers for $4 million. This is merely a down-payment. The intention is that this would be a joint venture. The ships themselves would cost a total of $30 million each, and each party to the joint venture would have to put up 7½ per cent as down-payment, i.e., $4 million. (5) An 85,000-deadweight-ton tanker, again in a joint venture. The ship will cost $20 million, and the down-payment from the Singapore side will be $3 million. (6) Neptune Orient Lines will also purchase one 18,000-dead-weight-ton ship for $1.5 million down-payment, out of a total cost of $10.5 million. (7) A further purchase is a super-tanker of 220,000 deadweight tons, costing $100 million. This is again a joint venture, and the down-payment from the Singapore side will be 7.5 per cent or $7.5 million. (8) A further purchase is a 35,000-deadweight-ton tanker for $20 million. This is a second-hand vessel. (9) Then a 150,000-ton ore/oil carrier at an estimated cost of $75 million, of which the down-payment for Neptune Orient Lines' share in this joint venture will be $2.8 million. (10) Two 3,000-deadweight-ton bulk carriers, for a down-payment of $1.6 million. The total cost of the ships will be $21 million. All this makes a total of $67.9 million. In the case of Jurong Shipbuilders, a loan of $20,795,500 is required. The loan consists of four parts. There is a loan for the construction of shipyard facilities, $21.45 million. This is mainly for the purchase of materials for the construction of shipyard facilities. Of this sum, $14.3 million will come from the Japanese grant of $25 million for financing part of this loan, which is repayable in 24 half-yearly equal instalments over a period of 12 years at an interest rate of four per cent. The interest rate will increase to 63 per cent from 1976. The loan for the purchase of imported materials, equipment and supplies for building vessels will be $25 million. Out of this, $21.7 million will come from the Exim Bank of Japan, and the total loan of $25 million is repayable in 20 half-yearly instalments over a period of 10 years. Then there is a loan for the deferred portion of the selling price of each vessel. This loan will be given under a Development Bank of Singapore line of credit. A subsidy loan will also be given on the cash deficit of the company. Of this amount, I think $20.795 million will be required in 1971-72. A further sum has been provided for Chartered Industries of Singapore Ltd. This is a total of $7.75 million.

One minute to go, Mr Hon.

As there is not much time, I shall be very brief. The Jurong Bird Park (Pte) Ltd. will require $1 million for further development. Singapore Aquarama, which will be the marineland type of development, will require $1 million for further expansion. Primary Industries Enterprise Ltd., which is to take over the poultry vaccine production functions of the Primary Production Department, will require $100,000. As for the Comfort Co-operative, $4 million is provided for loans to purchase taxis and buses.

Can I be permitted to raise a small point, Sir? I am just wondering whether the Minister would like to take the opportunity to inform the House what progress has been made by the Development Bank of Singapore in its efforts to salvage its investment in Eupoc.

Would the Minister like to reply to this query?

I would like to say that in matters of detail where the Development Bank of Singapore makes loans, I have no responsibility for its operations. I, of course, have a responsibility in view of the Government's investment in D.B.S. to see that it is a viable operation, and that it is not running into difficulties. Beyond that, I would consider that any details concerning D.B.S. operations are not really a matter for me to answer. 7.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two questions to ask in connection with the loans. The first is in regard to Neptune Orient Lines. I would like to find out from the Minister whether this shipping line is a going concern right now. In other words, is it in the black? Is it making a profit or is it still making a loss? Second, since the Government is providing substantial loans to the Jurong Bird Park, will the Minister be able to put pressure on the Jurong Bird Park to lower its entry fees to enable the poorer people to enter the Bird Park? It can cost quite a lot of money if we go there with the family.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I just wish to seek further clarification on the point which the Minister has earlier made. Am I correct in assuming that if I submit a question for oral answer on the same basis as I put it to him earlier on, I will not get an answer in this House?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, I am not responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Development Bank of Singapore. Therefore, I will not be able to answer the question. I would suggest that these are matters which the shareholders can place before the Board of Directors at the annual general meeting of the Development Bank of Singapore. If I may now answer the other question on Neptune Orient Lines. This is a question of accounting - how much depreciation is allowed for Neptune Orient Lines, that is, whether the ships should be depreciated over a period of 15, 17, 20 or 25 years. The accounts of a shipping line are rather complex, but very interesting. In the case of shipping lines in the United Kingdom, apparently they can depreciate the ships to any extent they please, in the case of Neptune Orient Lines, we have a choice of whether we should depreciate the ships over 15, 17, 20 or 25 years. Therefore, the question whether or not we make a profit depends on the amount of depreciation.

On commercial lines and practice.

As I have said, it varies very considerably. Some shipping lines do not consider depreciation necessary because the ships are going up in value all the time. As far as the accounts of Neptune Orient Lines are concerned, we show a slight loss. That is because the depreciation, if I am correct, is for 17 years, which is very conservative. The depreciation is for either 15 or 17 years. We thought it better that we should take a conservative view of this matter and depreciate the ships as rapidly as we can. On the question of the Jurong Bird Park, we have appointed a company with a board of directors. The suggestion for lower fees can be put before the board of directors, who of course, may be Government's nominees. However, they have also a duty to see that any company in which they have been appointed as directors should operate on a viable basis. I am happy to say that up to now, the attendance at the Jurong Bird Park has been very good and we should be able to cover all costs, including depreciation, if we continue to have visitors at the same rate as we are having now. At this particular stage the present fees should be maintained because they seem to be popular enough. They are apparently a going rate and satisfy most people, because the attendance has not fallen off very considerably. There are concession rates for school children. I would suggest a group concession rate for those people who would like to visit the Bird Park but who find the normal fees too high.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may be permitted to seek further elaboration from the Minister for Finance on the projects of Chartered Industries of Singapore Limited.

The Member's question is, what exactly is Chartered Industries of Singapore Limited doing? I think the evidence of its activities is quite clear in some respects, in other respects we would like to keep the production confidential to some extent. I would only say that I do not think that there is any need for Members to doubt the viability of this particular industry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed grateful to the Minister for Finance for assuring this House that the provisions are well taken care of and that the viability of the loans given is also assured. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting -

Amendment (6) .

I am not moving. Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 91 be reduced by $100. Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to find out from the Minister, first of all, up-to-date details of participation in industry by Government and statutory boards, and information relating to the failures of such enterprises engaged in by Government and the statutory boards. 7.30 p.m. Secondly, I would like to know what are Government's plans, if any, to help local entrepreneurs secure the technology, better management and help in terms of marketing abroad, learning export techniques and so on. Thirdly, I have a suggestion, namely, that perhaps Government ought to consider selling off Government-owned enterprises which have become viable to private holders and then using the money as a catalyst for further development of other industries which private capital is unable to go into for want of perception of opportunities or for want of capital and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Whampoa is asking for quite a lot of information and I do not think I shall be able to supply it in just 15 minutes.

Ten minutes, Mr Hon.

Yes, 10 minutes. The Government is participating in roughly 30 industrial enterprises. I did not quite get the Member for Whampoa. Did he mean industrial enterprises or enterprises of every kind, because there are enterprises like the Singapore Telephone Board?

Commercial enterprises, Sir.

The division is not always very apparent, for example, whether the Singapore Telephone Board and the Public Utilities Board are public utilities or industrial enterprises. In the United States, the Public Utilities Board would be regarded as an industrial enterprise. Assuming only industrial enterprises, I think the Government is participating in some 30 enterprises and in a few others which are related to tourism, e.g., the Instant Asia Cultural Show (Private) Limited in which we also participate in order to help tourism. Thirty enterprises may be considered industrial, and the total amount of Government equity involved in all these enterprises is approximately $121 million. The equity varies in amount from $2, where we just form a company and two shares are issued to the two subscribing members, to roughly $49 million. In percentage terms, we have anything up to 100 per cent participation. The performance of most of these industries has so far been satisfactory. Some of them are very satisfactory and there are others which we designate "sick companies" and we keep a watch over them. There has been only one failure and mention has been made about this in previous debates. This is a failure as far as the project is concerned, but it was not a total loss and we sold the Government share in the enterprise. This is related to a bicycle factory which is no longer in production and which has been converted to some other very good use in which the tool-room facilities were a major reason for the entrepreneur taking over the enterprise. On plans to help local industries, I think we have various organisations of which the Member is already aware. The Economic Development Board, for example, among its various activities, helps potential entrepreneurs to acquire the necessary technology by way of joint ventures in collaboration with overseas firms. The Development Bank of Singapore is also assisting by giving loans and assisting in equity and finding local partners for overseas firms. As regards assistance in management, the Government has various centres. The National Productivity Centre is one which helps in various management fields. Of course, the Government is also associated with the Institute of Management and the Universities in their efforts to teach management techniques. As far as providing management techniques is concerned, we have also the efforts of organisations like the International Executive Service Corps and the United Nations Organisation. In helping industries with marketing, we have the Exports Promotion Centre. There is also the Export Promotion Advisory Committee. There is INTRAXCO (International Trading Company) which does actual export promotion work. And there are, of course, Government organisations like the Trade Division and our overseas embassies and high commissions which play advisory roles. Manufacturers' associations and the Chambers of Commerce also help in preparations for trade fairs. I think the Member for Whampoa is familiar with the "Jetro Fair" in Japan to which he will be leading a mission in April. The last question the Member asked was whether we should not sell off some of the equity to private holders. This is something which we will consider. In fact, in certain cases we have already done so. For example, in the case of Jurong Shipyard, we thought that in order to bring in local expertise in addition to what we already have from the Japanese partner, we would sell some of the equity to various local entrepreneurs who would also take part in the management or in the direction of the firm, so that although we started off with 49 per cent, I believe our percentage holding of Jurong Shipyard is now 40 per cent. In other cases where the companies have gone public, like the National Iron and Steel Mills, there is no reason why we cannot sell our shares very readily. But in this instance the shares are already mostly in private hands. In other companies like Keppel Shipyard and Sembawang Shipyard, there may be some difficulties. For example, in the case of Sembawang Shipyard, we have undertaken certain obligations in respect of repairs of Commonwealth naval vessels. But we will be prepared from time to time to consider what shareholdings we can dispose of.

I have just one small point for clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. As regards the equity participation mentioned by the Minister, does this relate to that owned by the Government alone, or does it include the shares owned by the statutory authorities as well?

The statutory authorities in most cases own only public utilities. The Singapore Telephone Board, for example, which is a statutory authority, owns some shares in a telephone company to manufacture telephone instruments. As regards selling these shares to private holders, this is a matter really for the Singapore Telephone Board.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $363,655,520 for Head 91 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 101 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 101 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101. Sir, in moving this amendment, I merely wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs to the need for a new divisional headquarters for Paya Lebar Police Station. I am, of course, happy to note there is a provision of $100,010 for the divisional headquarters at Grange Road. There was some news about Paya Lebar Police Station some time ago and I gather the Minister for Home Affairs is well aware of it. Perhaps it would be pertinent for me to inform the House of the facilities at this police station. They are grossly inadequate to meet the needs of the eight constituencies which come under Paya Lebar Police Station, which is in "F" Division. I also wonder whether the Minister for Home Affairs is aware that some former police barracks have now been converted into offices. I believe the total population of the eight constituencies, including Serangoon Gardens which is represented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs, is quite large. I believe there is a shortage of manpower at Paya Lebar Police Station. Very often petty thefts and robberies are committed along roads like Punggol Road and Tampines Road. It is the shortage of manpower and lack of facilities at Paya Lebar Police Station that brings about such problems. In this respect, I shall be grateful if the Minister for Home Affairs can indicate to this House whether there are plans for the expansion of Paya Lebar Police Station, or whether there are plans for the construction of a new divisional police headquarters to be sited in any of the eight constituencies. I do not say that it should be in Punggol, but I did ask a question previously about the setting up of a police post in Punggol, and it was agreed to by the Minister of State of Defence when the Police was under the Ministry of Defence. 7.45 p.m. Now that the Police comes under the portfolio of the Minister for Home Affairs, I shall be grateful if the Minister can indicate whether or not a police post will be set up in Punggol. Or is it because there has been a change of Ministry and Minister that the idea has also been changed?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am fully aware of the conditions of Paya Lebar Police Station. In fact, when I assumed office, this was one of the first police stations I personally visited. One of the first things I did when I was in the Ministry, after my visit to this police station, was to look into the question of renovating it. It has come to light that the cost of renovation is quite high. At the moment, I think it would be far better to look into the need of having a new police station, properly sited, to take care of the fairly large area covered by this divisional police headquarters. I believe it requires, at the very least, $150,000 just to renovate the place. If a new police station is to be built, the cost can be anything from $150,000 to half a million dollars. So it is far better to have a new police station. I am fully aware that some barracks have been converted into offices, and I myself have visited these offices. I think they are inadequate. The question of manpower is one of the problems the Ministry is taking very seriously. We have considered the pros and cons of whether to continue with the present system of police patrol, which is highly labour intensive, or whether to adopt a more modern method of police patrol, which cuts down manpower but uses a high degree of police technology in the form of more vehicles and better radio equipment. As I have publicly stated earlier this year, we are going to equip two divisions this year, and try out whether this is more economical and, from the long-term point of view, more effective. I will go down to Paya Lebar Police Station again some time this year, and view the whole area in relation to this new system of policing. This time, for some very good reasons, I will bring along with me all the M.P.s who are involved in that area. I am not quite sure a police post is the answer to the problem, for the simple reason that with this new method of policing, the police force will have greater mobility. There will also be greater frequency of patrols. I have been to another rural area, that is the Rural West Division, where there is a police post and we put a man there. There is no crime. From the point of view of the public, it is convenient, but it is not a very efficient way of using manpower. Although my predecessor, the Minister of Defence, agreed to set up a police post in Punggol, I am not aware of it. I do not believe that provision has been made for such a police post. I will certainly look into the question, bearing in mind the larger problem of more efficient use of police manpower.

Before I withdraw my amendment, can the Minister for Home Affairs indicate in the affirmative that a new divisional police headquarters will come about to serve "F" Division, which covers the constituencies of Sembawang, Nee Soon, Jalan Kayu, Serangoon Gardens, Upper Serangoon, Punggol, Paya Lebar and certain parts of Tampines?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can certainly assure the Member that "F" Division has a high degree of priority, but in relation to the competing needs of the other police stations, I cannot give an affirmative answer. At the moment, we are trying to work out a rational formula for the sizes of the police divisions. How many police divisions are we going to need in future? Until that question is clearly settled, I cannot give a definite answer. If I were rash enough to promise the Member for Punggol, I would not be honest with him or with myself, because this is a very complex question.

On that note, Sir, I thank the Minister for Home Affairs and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $3,419,810 for Head 101 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper Supplement are Heads 76, 77, 92 and 141. I propose to take those heads of expenditure en bloc.

Question, "That the sums stated for those heads of expenditure which appear in the last column of the Summary of Estimated Expenditure on pages 5 and 6 of Paper Cmd. 4 of 1971 stand part of the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1972," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $635,962,210 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1972, contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1971," put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $635,962,210 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1972, contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1971."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." -[Prof. Wong Lin Ken]. Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes to Eight o'clock p.m.

Friday, 26th March, 1971

asked the Minister for Social Affairs if his Ministry has any plans for the construction of a swimming pool in a centrally located area for the use of school children studying in the Rural Central District comprising Sembawang. Nee Soon, Thomson, Jalan Kayu, Serangoon Gardens, Paya Lebar, Upper Serangoon and Punggol areas, and, if so, when the pool will be constructed.

The reply to your question above is as follows: I appreciate the concern of the Member on the lack of swimming pools in the outlying areas in general and especially in the rural central districts, comprising the areas mentioned by him. However, swimming pools and recreational facilities are expensive propositions and there must be a proven demand and full utilisation of them to justify construction of new facilities. In view of the takeover of sports facilities, including swimming pools from the British Services on their withdrawal and until such time as their future usage can be determined, it is not desirable to consider provision of new swimming pools and recreational areas. It is, however, hoped that some of the pools at Changi, and the Naval Base could be made available for public use, including school children in the rural districts.